THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

RIVERSIDE 


2 

J;Edru-r0Llin  and  the  second 
french  republic 


STUDIES  IN  HISTORY,  ECONOMICS  AND  PUBLIC  LAW 

EDITED  BY  THE  FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  OF 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

Volume  CIII]  [Number  2 

Whole  Number  234 


LEDRU'ROLLIN  AND  THE  SECOND 
FRENCH   REPUBLIC 


BY 

ALVIN  R.  CALMAN,  Ph.D. 

I^eteur  de  I'  Universite  de  Paris 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

SELLING  AGENTS 
New  York;  Longmans,  Green  &  Co. 
LoNDOM:  P.  S.  King  &  Son  Ltd. 
1922 


Copyright, 

BY 

ALVIN  R.  CAl 


L 


S 


MY  UNCLE 
HENRY  CALMAN 

ITHOSE  UNFAILING  GENEROSITY  HAS  BEEN  FELT 
BY  EVEKY  MEMBER  OF  HIS  FAMILY 


PREFACE 

The  material  on  Ledru-Rollin  is  rather  extensive. 
Among  the  printed  documents,  newspapers,  and  books, 
which  give  voluminous  information  about  his  part  in  the 
Second  Republic,  particularly  valuable  are  two  histories  of 
the  revolution  of  February,  one  written  by  Delvau,  Ledru's 
private  secretary,  the  other  by  Regnault,  his  chief  of  cabinet. 
Besides,  there  are  in  the  Bibliotheque  de  la  Ville  de  Paris 
a  few  thousand  letters  by  or  concerning  Ledru-Rollin;  most 
of  these,  however,  deal  with  the  period  posterior  to  June 
13,  1849,  and  therefore  lie  outside  the  range  of  this  study. 

This  thesis,  the  reader  will  find,  is  filled  with  quotations. 
1  have  adopted  the  method  of  rendering  them  all  into  Eng- 
lish. Some  words  are  almost  incapable  of  translation  and 
I  apologize  in  advance  for  the  equivalents  I  have  used;  thus 
repiihlicains  de  la  veille  I  render  old-line  republicans;  chef 
de  cabinet,  chief  of  cabinet;  emeute,  uprising  or  riot;  con- 
ciliabules,  cabals;  procureiir-general,  attorney-general.  One 
word  I  have  even  left  in  the  original  form :  rappel. 

The  abbreviation  **  LR  Papers  "  used  in  the  foot  notes  re- 
fers to  the  Ledru-Rollin  manuscript  material  in  the  Biblio- 
theque de  la  Ville  de  Paris. 

I  wish  to  give  thanks  to  Professor  Hazen  of  Columbia 
University  for  his  invaluable  advice,  to  Professor  Renard 
of  the  College  de  France  for  his  counsel,  to  Miss  Mudge  of 
Columbia  University  Library  for  her  aid  in  locating 
material,  to  M.  Stiegler  of  the  Bibliotheque  de  la  Ville  de 
Paris  for  his  assistance  in  deciphering  manuscripts,  and  to 
Professor  Hayes  of  Columbia  University,  Mr.  S.  W.  Drenan 
of  Middletown  High  School,  and  Professor  J.  B.  Stearns 
of  Princeton  for  their  valuable  help  in  work  of  revision. 
161]  7 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


rAGs 

Dedication S 

Preface  7 

Table  of  Contents 9 

CHAPTER  I 

Introduction 

Literature  on  second  republic— Ancestors — Youth  —  Ledru  as  a 
lawyer— Chamber  of  Deputies  under  July  Monarchy — La  Ri- 
/(jrwtf— Marriage  — Home  life IS 

CHAPTER  II 

The  Banquets 

France  in  1847 — Parties  in  the  legislature — Republicans— The  first 
banquets —Lille,  Dijon,  and  Chalon— Ledru  in  1847 — Republican- 
ization  of  France— A  visit  by  Melun— The  sessions  of  1847-8— 
Banquet  of  the  twelith  arrondissement 22 

CHAPTER  III 

The  February  Days 

February  21-22-23 — Morning  of  February  24 — At  the  Chamber  of 
Deputies — Speeches  to  the  crowds— Good-will— Distribution  of 
ministries— Proclamation  of  the  republic— General  Bedeau — 
Minor  matters 35 

CHAPTER  IV 
The  Minister  of  the  Interior 

Descriptions  of  Ledru  — Calumnies  —  Expenditures— Subordinates 
at  the  ministry — Extent  of  the  work — Charity — Fine  arts — Free 

dramatic  performances 57 

163]  9 


lO  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  [164 

PACE 

CHAPTER  V 
The  Provincial  Government 

Parties  in  the  government— The  Individual  members — The  minis- 
ters—Cavaignac — Dissension — Police  department— Caussidiere  .      7i 

CHAPTER  VI 

Finances  and  Foreign  Affairs 

Financial  conditions— Ledru's  policies— Tax  of  45  centimes— State 
bankruptcy— Legislative  investigations— Lamartine's  manifesto 
— Ledru's  policy— Foreign  workingmen — Germans  and  Savo- 
yards—Belgian democrats — Quievrain  expedition — Blervacq  at 
Paris — Polytechnical  students— Delescluze's  dilemma — Risquons- 
tout — Ledru's  responsibility 86 

CHAPTER  VII 
Father  of  Universal  Suffrage 
February  2q— Tricolor  v.  red  flag— Dissensions  within  the  govern- 
ment—Organization of  universal  suffrage— First  commissioners 
— Deschamps—Riancourt— Circular  of    March  8— of  March  12 — 
Conciliation  v.  republicanization— Panic 104 

CHAPTER  VIII 
The  Seventeenth  of  March 
National  Guard— March  15— Bear-skin  cap  fiasco— Postponement 
of  the  elections— Manifestation  of  March  17 — Results— New  com- 
missioners  and  commissioners-general — Circular   of   April    7 — 
Postponement  of  the  elections— Army 120 

CHAPTER  IX 
Clubs  and  Cabals 
Clubs — Club  leaders  —  Sobrier — Blanqui — Taschereau  document— 
Leroux— George    Ss^nA— Bulletins    of  the   /^efiudlic— Sixteenth 
bulletin— Cabals  at   the   ministry   of   the   interior— Meetings  of 
April  14  and  May  3 137 

CHAPTER  X 

The  Sixteenth  of  April 

Attacks  on  the  government— Preparations  for  a  manifestation — 
Complicity  of  Ledru — Ledru's  views— Government  attitude- 
Beating  the  rappel  —  Tht  manifestation— Results— Following 
days — F^ig  de  la  Fraterniti 150 


165]  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  1 1 

CHAPTER  XI 
The  Election  of  April  Twentv-third 
Conflict  with  Marrast — Clubs'  delegates— Non-commissioned  offi- 
cers as  delegates — Candidates— The  election  — Riot  at  Rouen — 
Opening  of  the  Assembly— Account  of  provisional  administration.  161 

CHAPTER  XII 
The  Executive  Commission 
Lamartine — Formation  of  the  new  executive — Choice  of  ministers 
— Unity  of  the  commission— Parties  in  the  Assembly I7« 

CHAPTER  XIII 
The  Fifteenth  of  May 

Causes  of  the  uprising— Longepied  visit— Measures  of  defense— In- 
vasion of  the  Assembly— Pandemonium— Recapture  of  the  Hotel 
de  Ville — Resignation  of  Caussidiere— Prosecution  of  Louis 
Blanc— Split  in  the  government — Commission  and  assembly — 
Public  meetings — Press 181 

CHAPTER  XIV 
The  June  Days 

Pire  DuchSne  banquet— National  workshops— Louis  Napoleon — 
Proposed  resignation — Plots  to  overthrow  the  commission — 
Causes  of  the  June  Days— Measures  of  defense — Offers  toCavaig- 
nac— Outbreak  of  the  insurrection— Hours  of  agony— The  As- 
sembly— Overthrow  of  the  commission— Its  resignation— Con- 
clusions—Aftermath    - 192 

CHAPTER  XV 

The  Committee  of  Investigation 

Quiet — First  reports  of  the  committee — Printing  of  the  documents 
—  Bonding  of  newspapers  — Finances  of  the  provisional  govern- 
ment— The  printed  report — The  debate— Prosecutions — The  re- 
action     213 

CHAPTER  XVI 

The  Constitution  of  1848 

State  of  siege — Right  to  labor— The  constitution — New  ministers 
— Chalet  banquet— Finances  again— Louis  Napoleon— Depart- 
mental counsellor  in  the  Sarthe 23a 


12  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  [i66 

rACB 

CHAPTER  XVII 
A  Presidential  Candidate 
Candidates— Radicals  and  Socialists— Cavaignac  in  June— Support- 
ers of  Ledru—SoliJariiere/>uf)licaine— Fosters— PuhMc  meetings 
— Banquets— Closing  of  the  clubs— The  election 243 

CHAPTER  XVIII 
The  Barrot  Cabinet 
Louis    Napoleon — Barrot — Changarnier's    double    command— The 
High  Court  at  Bourges— Cbsing  of  the  clubs— First  impeach- 
ment—  January   26  —  Solidariti  ripublicaine — Commemorative 
banquet— Banquets  of  the  schools— Closing  of  the  clubs     ....    262 

CHAPTER  XIX 
End  of  the  Constituent  Assembly 
The   Mountain— Other   parties— Changarnier   again — Finances   of 
the  provisional  government — Police  interferince  in  elections — 
Duel   with    Denjoy — Second   impeachment — Changarnier    once 
more— End  of  the  Constituent  Assembly 280 

CHAPTER  XX 
The  Legislative  Assembly 
Bourges  trial — Trials  of  Delescluze— Mountain  manifesto— The 
three  parties — The  provinces— Le  Mans  banquet  —  Chateauroux 
banquet — Moulins  banquet — Moulins  attack— At  the  Assembly — 
Riom  trial— The  election— Parties  in  the  Legislative  Assembly — 
The  Mountain— Change  in  officials — Keratry's  remark 295 

CHAPTER  XXI 
Italian  Affairs 
Foreign  affairs  under  the  provisional   government  and  executive 
commission— October  2— Rome  in  1848— November  30 — Parties 
on  the    Roman   question — January  8 — February  20— March  8— 
March  30  and  31 315 

CHAPTER  XXII 
The  Roman  Expedition 
Despatch  of  the  Roman  expedition— April  16— Oudinot's  orders — 
Mountain  letter — First  attack  on  Rome — May  7— Louis  Napo- 
leon's congratulations— May  3— Changarnier's  disobedience- 
Fall  of  Fauchet— Czar's  manifesto— Lessep's  mission— Cabinet 
changes— Fall  of  the  Roman  republic 337 


167]  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  I3 

PAG« 

CHAPTER  XXIII 

On  the  Eve  of  an  Uprising 
Forces  of  the  opposition — Demands  for  interpellations — Proclama- 
tions—June 11:  meetings— Assembly— The  defiance — More  meet- 
ings— June  12:    National   Guard — Editorials -Assembly — Moun- 
tain     355 

CHAPTER  XXIV 
The  Grand  Fiasco 
Interpretations  of  June  13— Newspapers  and  proclamations — The 
manifestation — At  the  Rue  du  Hasard  — Guinard  at  the  Palais 
National— The  Conservatory — The  conference— The  proclama- 
tion —  Barricades  —  Forestier  —  The  attack  —  Flight  —  vasistos — 
Escape— Responsibility  of  the  Mountain— Assembly 374 

CHAPTER  XXV 

Aftermath 
Escape   to    Belgium    and    England — Departments — Newspapers — 
Assembly — Domiciliary  visits— Ledru  and  the   trial  —  Versailles 
Trial — Assembly — Solidariti  rtpublicaine  trial — Last   years   of 
Ledru 397 

CHAPTER  XXVI 
Conclusion 
Virtues  of  Ledru — Faults— Characteristics— First  revolution— Ideas 
— Socialism — Open  means— Moderation — Danton  and  Gambetta 
— Mirabeau— Character — Place  in  history 411 

Appendix— French  Versions  of  Unpublished  Manuscripts.  .    419 

Critical  Bibliography 427 

Index 446 


CHAPTER  I 
Introduction 

Of  all  the  periods  of  modem  French  history  probably  the 
least  studied  is  that  of  the  second  republic;  particularly  in 
Great  Britain  and  America  it  is  remarkable  how  few  books 
have  been  published  about  it.  Except  Curtis's  extremely 
clear  work  on  the  constitution  of  1848  and  Whitehouse's 
life  of  Lamartine,  far  better  as  a  literary  biography  than  as 
a  political  study  of  the  eminent  poet-politician,  there  exist  in 
English  no  secondary  works  of  real  value. 

Even  in  France  the  field  of  biography  has  been  left  un- 
developed. There  are  scores  of  books  on  the  literary  men 
— Lamartine,  Victor  Hugo,  Lamennais — a  few  of  which 
treat  adequately  their  political  views.^  The  career  of  Louis 
Napoleon  has  been  dealt  with  by  many  writers,  but  by  none 
in  a  satisfactory  manner.  The  conservative  statesmen — I 
Berryer,  Falloux,  Montalembert — ^and  the  socialists — Cabet, 
Leroux,  Proudhon — have  received  ample  treatment,  but  the 
great  mass  of  radicals  and  liberals  have  so  far  found  no 
chronicler.*  Alone  of  the  eleven  members  of  the  provi- 
sional government,  Lamartine,  Marie,  and  Louis  Blanc  have 
been  competently  handled.  A  striking  lacuna  is  a  biography 
of  Ledru-Rollin;  it  is  remarkable  that  the  father  of  univer- 
sal suffrage  has  received  no  comprehensive  treatment.* 

Alexandre  Auguste  Ledru  was  born  on  February  2,  1807 

'Notably  Quentin-Bauchart  on  Lamartine  and  Garsou  on  Hugo. 
'Only    Barbds,    Blanqui,    and    Jules    Favre   have    foiuid    an   adequate 
biographer. 
'See  bibliography  for  critical  list  of  biographies. 

J6f))  IS 


1 6    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [lyro 

in  Paris  near  the  church  of  St.  Gervais.  His  grandfather 
was  Ledru-Comus,  a  prominent  physician  and  physicist,  who, 
owing  to  his  love  for  spectacular  experiments,  earned  the 
reputation  of  a  prestidigitator.  Ledru-Comus  accumulated 
a  considerable  fortune  which  ultimately  descended  to  his 
grandson.  He  had  two  sons;  Jacques  Philippe  Ledru,  a 
successful  doctor,  a  member  of  the  Antiquarian  Society  and 
of  the  Academy  of  Medicine;  and  Jacques  Auguste  Ledru, 
inspector  of  pawn-shops.  The  latter  married  Marie  Honor- 
ine  Gay,  and  from  this  union  resulted  two  children,  Emilie 
and  Alexandre  Auguste.  The  son  took  a  classical  course 
at  the  Lycee  Charlemagne  and  then  proceeded  to  the  law 
school  of  the  University  of  Paris.  His  record  as  a  student, 
if  not  brilliant,  was  at  least  full  of  promise.  In  1828 
Ledru  was  admitted  to  the  bar.  To  distinguish  himself 
from  a  well-known  colleague,  he  added  to  his  surname  that 
of  Rollin,  the  maiden-name  of  his  maternal  great-grand- 
mother.* 

By  his  eloquence  in  court,  Ledru  made  a  rapid  success  at 
the  bar.  Already  his  quickness  in  mastering  a  subject  made 
itself  apparent.  He  usually  studied  the  case  which  he  was 
to  argue,  on  the  morning  of  the  trial,  often  on  the  way  to 
the  court-room,  "  nevertheless  developing  his  case  with  that 
audacity  of  thought  and  that  clearness  of  expression  which 
made  him  one  of  the  most  distinguished  lawyers  of  the 
supreme  court."  -  He  took  part  in  the  editing  of  two  lead- 
ing legal  periodicals. 

But  this  work  did  not  satisfy  his  ambition.  He  threw 
himself  into  the  liberal  movement  in  politics.  In  1832,  he 
drew  up  a  brief  on  the  state  of  siege,  which  Odilon  Barrot, 
one  of  the  most  distinguished  lawyers  of  the  day  and  leader 

'For  the  period  of  childhood  and  youth  see  Hartmann  in  La  Citi 
4:3-10. 

sRegnault.  Histoirc  de  la  Revolution  de  Fibrin;  153. 


I^i]  INTRODUCTION  1 7 

of  the  liberal  monarchic  party  in  the  legislature,  utilized  in 
his  successful  plea  before  the  court  of  appeals.  In  1834, 
Ledru  published  a  pamphlet  on  the  Transnonain  Affair  (an 
insurrection  put  down  with  great  vigor  and  cruelty  by  the 
government),  a  pamphlet  which  created  a  great  sensation. 
Thereafter  he  was  frequently  called  upon  to  defend  liberal 
newspapers  and  persecuted  republicans.^  Odilon  Barrot  was 
acquainted  with  the  promising  young  lawyer  and  supported 
him  in  his  candidacy  for  the  legislature  in  1839,  but  Ledru's 
platform  was  too  radical  for  the  constituency  of  St.  Valery, 
'.y.na  his  conservative  opponent  won  by  eleven  votes.  Two 
years  later,  Ledru  was  successful  at  Le  Mans.  The  death  of 
Garnier- Pages  the  elder  had  left  vacant  that  seat,  and  there 
was  much  discussion  as  to  who  should  replace  that  leading 
liberal  orator.  Trouve-Chauvel,  a  republican  and  a  former 
mayor  of  Le  Mans,  finally  lent  his  support  to  Ledru-Rollin, 
and  this  all-powerful  advocacy  gained  him  the  seat.^ 

Ledru's  profession  of  faith  in  the  meeting  that  preceded 
the  election  merits  particular  attention,  for  it  portrays  his 
views  at  the  outset  of  his  political  career.  After  lamenting 
the  miser}'  of  the  poor,  the  candidate  enunciated  the  sov- 
ereignty of  the  people  as  the  chief  principle  of  government. 
The  first  step  towards  this  goal,  he  said,  ought  to  be  electoral 
reform,  that  is,  universal  suffrage,  for  the  entire  existing 
political  system  was  absurd  and  dishonest.  The  dynasty  of 
Louis  Philippe  was  a  sickly  compromise  resting  firmly 
neither  on  divine  right  nor  on  popular  sovereignty.  As 
to  the  political  parties,  that  of  Thiers  really  desired  few 
changes,  and  that  of  Barrot  was  merely  a  slightly  better 
nuance  of  the  same  party.  The  legitimists  were  only  pre- 
tending to  be  liberal.     Alone  the  republicans  like  himself  be- 

'Caussidiere  was  among  those  defended  by  him. 

'For  manuscripts  on  the  election  see  IJ?.  Papers  4:  Part  2;  for  letters 
of  Regnault  see  op.  cit.,  i  :  106-118. 


1 8    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [172 

lieved  in  the  people  and  advocated  for  them  serious  reforms. 
Meanwhile  what  did  the  Chamber  do?  It  wasted  time  over 
the  address  from  the  throne  and  inspired  hopes  that  never 
matured.  In  foreign  affairs  France  vacillated  and  allowed 
England  to  triumph;  for  Algeria  no  satisfactory  measures 
were  taken;  the  fortifications  of  Paris  were  built  to  subdue 
the  faubourgs,  not  the  foreigner;  nothing  was  done  for  the 
people  as  the  deputies  were  busy  logrolling.  Fear  and 
venality  dominated  the  legislators.  As  for  himself,  Ledru- 
Rollin  promised  not  to  follow  the  lead  of  the  deputies;  he 
would  fight  for  democracy. 

In  this  speech  the  beliefs  to  which  the  orator  adhered 
throughout  his  lifetime  were  clearly  enunciated:  popular 
sovereignty  as  the  goal,  universal  suffrage  as  the  means 
thereto;  detestation  of  constitutional  monarchy;  desire  for  a 
bold  foreign  policy;  a  domestic  program  for  the  ameliora- 
tion of  the  condition  of  the  poor. 

This  speech  marks  the  appearance  of  Ledru  as  a  leader. 
There  were  men  of  position  who,  like  Odilon  Barrot,  opposed 
the  conservative  tendency  of  Louis  Philippe's  ministers; 
there  were  others  who,  like  Dupont  de  I'Eure,  went  so  far 
as  to  state  their  ideal  preference  for  a  republic;  but  Ledru 
was  the  first  representative  elected  under  the  July  monarchy 
who  openly  declared  that  the  constitutional  form  of  mon- 
archy was  fundamentally  bad.  This  meant  necessarily  a 
rupture  with  the  statesmen  who  headed  the  parliamentary 
opposition,  with  Odilon  Barrot  w^ho  had  supported  him  in 
1839- 

It  took  courage  to  attack  Louis  Philippe  and  his 
government  so  audaciously,  and  Ledru  was  prosecuted 
for  his  electoral  speeches.  This  merely  gave  him  a  new" 
platform  from  which  to  preach  republicanism.  Ledru  was 
acquitted  on  a  technicality  and  in  December  1841  took  his 
seat  in  the  Chamber.     He  was  reelected  with  ease  to  the 


173]  INTRODUCTION  ■  19 

legislature  that  sat  from  1842  to  1846  and  spoke  therein 
fairly  frequently.  Repeatedly  he  attacked  the  government 
on  various  phases  of  its  policy,  domestic,  colonial,  and  for- 
eign, but  only  in  one  field  was  he  listened  to  with  attention : 
in  discussions  concerning  the  abolition  of  negro  slavery. 
It  was  not  what  Ledru  said  that  created  his  importance;  it 
was  his  presence  as  an  irreconcilable  republican  in  a  monar- 
chist assembly  that  attracted  attention.  In  1846  he  was  still 
opposed  to  the  entire  policy  of  the  government.  On  January 
19,  Ledru  delivered  a  violent  attack  on  all  the  dynastic 
parties,  speaking  of  the  illusory  glory  of  France  abroad  and 
the  illusory  prosperity  of  France  at  home.  Bankruptcy  was 
approaching,  he  said.  The  working  class  was  in  a  deplor- 
able condition.  In  the  recent  union  of  the  left  centre  and 
the  left  ^  the  latter  had  abandoned  nearly  its  entire  program. 
Although  the  foreign  policy  advocated  by  Thiers  was  laud- 
ible,  that  statesman  was  not  sincere  in  his  advocac}^  of  it, 
and  his  internal  policy  was  essentially  the  same  as  that  of 
Guizot  and  the  existing  ministry.  There  was  no  use  in 
appealing  to  the  Chamber;  it  was  to  the  country  that  he 
appealed.^ 

Ledru-Rollin  sorely  felt  the  need  of  a  republican  organ 
to  propagate  his  advanced  ideas.  The  National,  although 
edited  by  republicans,  was  not  sufficiently  radical  for  him 
and  Godefroy  Cavaignac;  accordingly  they  founded  the 
Rcforme.  At  first  Cavaignac  controlled  the  newspaper,  but 
when  after  his  death  Flocon  became  editor-in-chief.  Ledru's 
influence   became   more    keenly    felt.''     Ledru's    connection 

'In  France  and  other  continental  countries  the  parties  are  often  called 
after  their  position  in  the  legislative  chamber,  the  liberals  sitting  on 
the  left  side. 

"^  Discotirs  politiques  1:217-231. 

*  In  184s,  other  members  of  the  directing  board  were  Etienne  and 
Frangois  Arago,  Louis  Blanc,  Pascal  Duprat,  Guinard,  Recurt,  and 
Schoelcher. 


20   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [174 

with  the  journal  was  fourfold :  he  was  its  representative  in 
the  Giamber  of  Deputies  and  received  from  it  unqualified 
support  and  fulsome  praise ;  he  was  on  the  directing  board 
and  helped  determine  the  general  policy  of  the  newspaper; 
he  wrote  articles  for  it — of  course  all  his  utterances  in  or 
out  of  the  Chamber  were  published  verbatim,  but  he  was 
also  the  author  of  many  unsigned  essays  and  of  several 
manifestoes ;  he  was  its  banker,  for  the  periodical  never  was 
a  financial  success  and  Ledru-Rollin  impoverished  himself 
supplying  funds  to  maintain  its  propaganda. 

It  was  during  this  period,  in  1843,  that  I^edru  married 
Henriette  Sharpe,  a  rich  young  Irishwoman  and  protestant."" 
Mgr.  Affre,  later  Archbishop  of  Paris,  performed  the  cere- 
mony, and  the  groom's  future  colleagues,  Frangois  Arago 
and  Lamartine,  acted  as  witnesses.  It  is  interesting  to 
speculate  on  the  influence  of  Ledru's  wife  in  his  dislike  for 
England.  It  is  notable  that  in  the  same  vear  as  his  marriage 
Ledru-Rollin  went  to  Ireland  as  the  representative  of  the 
French  republicans  and  was  present  nt  O'Connell's  gigantic 
meeting  at  Tara. 

Ledru  was  happy  in  his  married  life.  Henriette  held  the 
same  political  opinions  as  her  husband.  She  helped  him  in 
his  work,  wrote  letters  for  him  when  he  was  sick,  gave  him 
money  for  political  propaganda  when  his  considerable  for- 
tune was  exhausted,"  and  while  he  was  minister  took  her 
place  as  patroness  of  various  public  charities.^  The  couole 
occupied  a  large  house,  4  Rue  de  Tournon.  which  had  a 

^For  marriage  contract  see  LR  Papers  4:  12.  For  permission  to  make 
a  mixed  marriage  see  ibid.,  4:  10. 

*  In  1848  Ledru  transferred  to  his  wife  all  his  remaining  possessions, 
consisting  of  real  estate  in  Paris  and  Le  Mans,  and  his  share  in  the 
family  mansion  at  Fontenay-aux-Roses,  a  house  built  by  the  Scarroi\s. 

•Melun  2:  12-19  praises  her  work  for  his  Fraternites,  an  organization 
in  which  each  wealthy  lady  acted  as  guardian  of  one  poor  family. 


175]  INTRODUCTION  21 

garden  with  trees  and  a  small  pond.  Across  the  street  they 
rented  a  carriage  house  and  a  stable.  For  this  they  paid  four 
thousand  francs  a  year.^  They  kept  four  servants  and 
their  total  household  expenses,  carefully  kept  to  the  smallest 
item  by  Henriette  Ledru-Rollin,  amounted  to  about  ten 
thousand  francs  a  year.^ 

'For  contract  see  LR-B55. 
•LR-J7  for  expenses  for  1848. 


CHAPTER  II  I 

The  Banquets 

In  1847  Louis  Philippe  was  reigning  in  France;  for 
seventeen  years  he  had  maintained  himself  on  the  throne  and 
felt  himself  at  last  strongly  established.  Guizot,  his  min- 
ister for  the  last  seven  years,  had  just  received  a  new  and 
large  majority  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies;  ^  the  opposition 
was  broken  up  into  fragments.  France  had  passed  through 
an  era  of  prosperity,  for  the  citizen  king  favored  the  bour- 
geoisie. 

The  era  of  prosperity,  however,  was  clearly  ended.  The 
government's  finances  were  in  a  lamentable  condition. 
Many  prominent  business  firms  were  on  the  verge  of  failure. 
In  the  legislature  the  king  and  Guizot  had  a  majority,  but 
a  majority  composed  of  officials  and  place-hunters  elected 
by  a  small  minority  of  the  population.  The  great  majority 
of  non-voters  were  dissatisfied  with  the  government,  and 
the  proletariat  was  even  antagonistic  to  the  existing  social 
system.  Some  advocated  socialism,  for  the  theories  ofi 
Fourier  and  St.  Simon  had  penetrated  into  the  working 
classes,  but  the  greater  part  had  no  clear  idea  of  what  they 
desired  in  place  of  the  existing  system;  any  catchword  might 
rally  them  to  revolt. 

In  the  Chamber  the  monarchical  opposition,  composed 
of  the  left  centre  under  Thiers  and  Dufaure  and  the  left 
headed  by  Odilon  Barrot,  was  stronger  in  ability  than  in 
numbers.     In  the  government  ranks  only  Guizot  and  his 

'Ledru  had,  however,  been  reelected  at  Le  Mans  without  difficulty. 
22  [176 


177]  THE  BANQUETS  23 

minister  of  the  interior,  Duchatel,  stood  out,  whereas  the 
opposition  inchided  many  effective  orators  and  prominent 
statesmen.  At  this  time  Thiers  probably  differed  Uttle  from 
Guizot  except  that  the  latter  was  in,  the  former  out  of 
power,  but  he  had  joined  Odilon  Barrot  with  the  avowed 
aim  of  parliamentary  and  electoral  reform.  Lamartine, 
though  cooperating  with  them,  was  a  member  of  no  party, 
but  a  free  lance,  already  headed  towards  republicanism. 

The  irreconcilable  parties  were  the  legitimists,  supporters 
of  the  principle  of  the  divine  right  of  monarchy,  and  the 
republicans.  The  latter  were  divided  into  two  groups. 
The  National  coterie,  the  moderate  wing,  was  far  more 
powerful  in  the  Chamber  where  Bethmont,  Carnot,  Dupont 
de  I'Eure,  Garnier-Pages,  Marie,  and  Pagnerre  had  seats. 
They  wished  for  a  republic  but  accepted  the  constitutional 
monarchy  as  a  pis  aller.  They  were  interested  in  wide 
political  reforms,  but  they  ignored  social  questions.  Above 
all  they  opposed  with  all  their  strength  violent  methods. 
This  attitude  did  not  satisfy  the  more  ardent  republicans 
of  the  Reforme,  whose  sole  spokesman  in  the  legislature 
was  Ledru-Rollin,  though  FranQois  Arago  was  mildly 
sympathetic.  For  them  monarchy  was  fundamentally  bad 
and  the  dynasty  of  Louis  Phillippe  an  unmitigated  evil. 
Moreover,  they  desired  social  as  well  as  political  transfor- 
mations. Peaceful  means  for  overthrowing  the  monarchy, 
mere  propaganda,  were  insufficient ;  when  the  moment  was 
ripe,  violent  measures,  a  revolution  must  be  resorted  to.' 
Between  these  two  sections  of  the  republican  party,  between 
these  two  newspapers,  l^etween  Garnier-Pages  and  Ledru- 
Rollin,  between  Armand  Marrast  and  Flocon,  a  violent  feud 
existed;  duels  were  even  threatened.     The  final  goal   was 

'  The  leader  of  this  party,  Ledru-Rollin,  however,  although  theoretically 
he  saw  the  need  of  resorting  to  violence,  was  averse  to  an  insurrection 
unless  success  would  be  almost  certain. 


24    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [178 

the  same,  but  their  methods  of  reaching  it  differed  funda- 
mentally.' Thus,  whereas  the  National  republicans  joined 
the  coalition  of  the  lefts,  Ledru-Rollin,  although  he  usually- 
voted  with  them,  took  no  part  in  their  councils  and  their 
conferences. 

The  opposition  decided  to  show  its  strength  in  the  country 
by  a  series  of  banquets.  The  ballot  box  had  given  a 
majority  to  the  government,  but  the  lefts  wished  to  show 
that  the  majority  of  citizens  were  on  their  side.  Public 
meetings  would  have  attracted  large  crowds,  but  it  would 
have  been  difficult  to  count  those  present  and  many  persons, 
merely  curious  to  hear  prominent  speakers,  might  have  at- 
tended. On  the  contrary,  the  buying  of  a  seat  at  a  banquet 
was  a  formal  adherence  to  the  principles  of  the  organizers, 
and  the  toasts  at  the  close  of  the  feast  gave  an  excellent  op- 
portunity for  expounding  doctrines.  Guizot  and  Diichatel 
had  each  had  a  banquet  in  his  own  honor,  and  the  opposition 
leaders  felt  that  the  government  could  not  reasonably  object 
to  the  adoption  of  the  same  tactics  by  others.  All  shades 
of  opinion  from  Dufaure  to  Gamier-Pages  were  represented 
at  the  first  banquet,  held  at  Chateaurouge  on  July  9,  1847. 
Thiers,  however,  the  most  conservative  adversary  of  the 
government,  although  evincing  sympathy,  refused  to  take 
part;  and  Ledru-Rollin,  the  most  radical,  did  not  attend. 
"  At  the  banquet  of  Chateaurouge,  which  commenced  that 
series  of  reform  demonstrations  which  had  such  a  sad  re- 
sult," says  Barrot  in  his  memoirs,  "  M.  Ledru-Rollin  had 
been  left  out,  and  that  not  as  an  oversight,  but  as  an  exclu- 
sion premeditated  and  decided  on  by  a  committee  in  w^hich 
the  moderate  republicans  were  the  most  eager  to  repulse 
him." ""     In    fact   at  first   Ledru-Rollin   and   the   Rcforme 

^  For  a  good  discussion  by  a  contemporary  see  Gamier-Pages  4:  67. 
*  Barrot  2  :  25. 


179]  '^^^  BANQUETS  25 

adopted  a  rather  contemptuous  attitude  towards  the  move- 
ment/ But  finally,  realizing  the  great  influence  of  the 
banquets,  and  possibly  influenced  by  Lamartine's  speech  at 
Macon, ^  the  radicals  determined  to  enter  the  combat  and 
chose  in  November  1847  the  friendly  city  of  Lille  for  their 
first  appearance.^ 

A  committee  composed  of  liberal  monarchists  and  of 
radical  republicans,  the  latter  headed  by  Delescluze  of  the 
Impartial  du  Nord  and  Bianchi  of  the  Messager,*  had  in- 
vited to  the  banquet  which  was  to  be  held  in  Lille  on  Nov- 
ember 7,  Barrot,  Cremieux,  and  the  deputies  from  the  de- 
partment of  the  North,  Gamier- Pages  and  Ledru-RoUin,  pro- 
minent republicans  like  Louis  Blanc  and  Recurt,  and  jour- 
nalists like  Etienne  Arago,  Domes,  and  Flocon.  Barrot 
was  extremely  irritated  when  he  heard  that  Ledru-RoUin 
was  to  attend;  he  feared  that  the  presence  of  this  radical 
would  give  to  the  banquet  a  tone  too  revolutionary.  To 
counteract  this  he  demanded  the  insertion  of  a  toast  to  the 
king.  Only  once  before  had  this  been  demanded  and  then 
at  Cosne  it  had  caused  the  retirement  of  Gambon.  Imme- 
diately Ledru  and  Testelin  withdrew  their  acceptance.  This 
was  not  to  the  taste  of  the  organizing  committee  and  it  re- 
fused absolutely  the  toast  to  the  king.  Barrot  tried  to  im- 
pose his  will.  Now  he  in  his  turn  refused  to  Ije  present, 
expecting  that  the  committee  would  submit  to  his  demand 
rather  than  lose  his  presence.     But  only  his  fellow-deputies, 

^ Reformc  passim;  Alton-Shee  61.  For  good  study  of  position  of 
Ledru  at  this  time  see  Levy-<juenot  in  Revolution  de  1848  6:  17-28,  58-75- 

•'"Die  speech  of  Lamartine . . .  was  for  Flocon,  Ledru-RoUin,  Louis 
Blanc  a  first  beam  of  light."— Alton-Shee  61. 

•The  government  late  in  1846  had  refused  to  allow  Le  Mans  to  give 
Ledru  a  banquet, — N.  Gallois  61 — but  this  formed  no  part  of  the  banquet 
campaign;  accordingly  Ledru's  first  appearance  was  at  Lille. 

*  Later  on  January  6,  1848  Ledru  wrote  to  Bianchi  asking  him  to  aid 
Caussidiere  in  a  special  mission  at  Lille — For  letter  see  Gossez  106. 


26    LEDRU-ROLUN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [i8o 

the  president  of  the  banquet,  and  a  score  of  guests  followed 
him.  The  remaining  twelve  hundred  banqueters  appeared; 
a  new  president  was  elected;  a  deputation  composed  of 
monarchists  and  republicans  visited  Ledru  and  induced  him 
to  be  present;  and  the  dinner  passed  off  peaceably  as  an 
ovation  to  the  deputy  from  Le  Mans,  The  conduct  of 
Ledru-Rollin  showed  a  happy  contrast  to  the  uncompromis- 
ing attitude  of  his  opponent.  In  order  to  conciliate  the  more 
conservative  guests  he  had  agreed  to  substitute  a  toast  to 
the  workingnien  for  one  to  the  national  sovereignty.  He 
would  not  drink  a  toast  to  the  king,  but  otherwise  he  was 
willing  to  accommodate  himself  to  the  wishes  of  the  people 
of  Lille.  The  affair  was  "  for  the  chiefs  of  the  democratic 
party  more  than  a  triumph  of  pride ;  it  was  a  powerful  pro- 
paganda, causing  numerous  conversions  to  the  republican 
faith."  ' 

Most  surprising  was  the  moderation  of  Ledru-Rollin's 
speech.  He  deprecated  the  false  picture  of  the  proletariat 
incapable  of  political  power,  deplored  its  misery,  praised  its 
patriotism  and  devotion,  attacked  the  selfishness  of  the 
dominant  bourgeoisie.  Who  represents  the  people  in  the 
Chamber  today  ?  he  asked.  Fom,  3;om,  cried  the  guests.  He 
was  doing  his  best,  the  orator  declared,  but  he  had  never 
shared  the  misery  of  the  people.  Universal  suft'rage  was 
needed  to  bring  the  working  people  into  their  own.  Napo- 
leon said  that  in  fifty  years  Europe  would  be  either  Cossack 
or  republican.     How  true !  Europe  shall  not  be  Cossack ;  the 

^A.lton-Shee  6^;  cf.  Stern  1:25.  On  the  banquet  see  Gossez  96-105: 
Alton-Shee  61-2.  The  account  of  Barrot  i :  464-6  is  typical  of  its 
author,  mixing  truth  and  misrepresentation.  He  pretends  that  the  radi- 
cals obtained  control  of  the  banquet  by  trickery,  not  informing  him  of 
the  presence  of  Ledru  till  the  last  minute,  whereas  the  Lille  newspapers 
had  announced  the  attendance  of  that  deputy  several  days  previous. 
He  inserts  his  speech  of  resignation  and  insinuates  that  this  oration 
made  a  serious  impression,  whereas  nobody  noticed  it. 


igl]  THE  BANQUETS  27 

repressive  laws,  he  said,  prevented  him  from  discussing  the 
other  ahernative.  Then  Ledru-RolHn  eulogized  the  men 
wihom  he  considered  the  great  apostles  of  liberalism :  Chateau- 
briand, Lamennais,  Beranger,  Lamartine,  Frangois  Arago, 
David  d' Angers.  He  spoke  for  an  independent  Poland,  a 
united  Italy,  a  democratic  Switzerland.  He  ended  with  a 
prophecy  of  the  inevitable  approach  of  Liberty,  Equality, 
Fraternity.^ 

Lamartine  praised  this  speech  in  his  newspaper.  (Was 
it  because  Lamartine  himself  was  praised  in  it?)  "The 
speech  of  M.  Ledru-Rollin  is  one  of  the  most  eloquent  and 
well  reasoned  that  he  ever  pronounced.  .  .  .  The  com- 
munism of  M.  Ledru-Rollin  is  practically  ours;  that  is,  an 
intelligent  love  of  the  people.  .  .  .  There  is  nothing  to.  be 
angry  at,  but  much  to  reflect  on."  " 

Emboldened  by  the  success  at  Lille,  the  radicals  con- 
tinued their  campaign,  and  their  leader  took  part  in  two 
more  important  banquets.  Exactly  two  weeks  later  (Nov- 
ember 21)  he  spoke  at  Dijon.  To  this  affair  the  dynastic 
liberals  ^  were  not  even  invited.  This  time  Ledru  was  per- 
mitted to  toast  the  sovereignty  of  the  people.  In  a  more 
radical  manner  he  developed  the  doctrines  enunciated  at 
Lille.  He  advocated  universal  suffrage  and  defended  it  as 
practicable.  He  denounced  the  wishy-washy  tactics  of  the 
parliamentarians  and  proclaimed  the  uncompromising  prin- 
ciples of  the  republican  party.  He  told  how  democratic 
ideas  were  spreading  even  among  the  upper  classes  and 
appealed  to  his  audience  to  aid  in  the  propagation  of  the 
spirit  of  Liberty,  Equality,  Fraternity.* 

^Discours  politiques  1:328-339. 
*Bien  Public,  November  14. 

'Another  name  for  the  party  of  Odilon  Barrot.  For  details  on  Dijon 
banquet  see  Alton-Shee  70. 

^Discours  politiques  i  :  340-350. 


og    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [182 

The  last  of  these  radical  banquets  was  held  at  Chalon-sur- 
Saone  a  month  later,  December  19.  Lamartine  refused  to 
be  present  but  sent  a  friendly  letter  and  urged  his  friend, 
Lacratelle,  to  attend.  The  latter  begged  Lamartine  not  to 
show  apparent  disapproval  by  absenting  himself.  The  poet 
replied ;  "  That  is  what  I  desire,  however.  I  do  not  wish 
to  combat  Ledru-Rollin  in  public;  I  admire  him  and  consider 
him  a  force  for  democracy,  but  my  sympathies  are  not  with 
the  radicals."  ^  Two  thousand  guests  listened  to  Ledru, 
who  enunciated  the  same  doctrines  as  at  Lille  and  Dijon. 
This  si>eech  is  interesting  as  showing  three  cardinal  features 
of  Ledru's  policy:  admiration  for  the  Convention  of  1793, 
dislike  of  England,  belief  in  the  fraternity  of  all  democratic 
peoples.' 

After  the  public  l>anquet  there  was  a  private  dinner  at 
which  Lacratelle  met  Ledru,  "  this  j>owerful  instrument  in 
democratic  ranks.  .  .  .  He  had  made  a  splendid  speech  but 
did  not  seem  at  all  exhausted.  That  great  chest  had  breath 
enough  for  twenty  speeches,  but  there  were  ladies  present, 
and  he  did  not  impose  on  them  longer  than  to  satisfy  curios- 
ity. He  proved  himself  a  temperate  and  attractive  speaker 
and  left  the  impression  of  being  a  thorough  man  of  the 
world.  .  .  .  Flocon  abandoned  himself  to  his  theories  and 
frightened  the  ladies."  In  a  private  conversation  with 
Lacratelle  during  the  dinner,  Ledru-Rollin  declared :  "  The 
great  serice  that  Lamartine  has  rendered  to  the  public  is 
that  now  one  may  discuss  Robespierre  without  l>eing  con- 
sidered a  cannibal."  ^  Lamartine  praised  Ledru's  Chalon 
speech  as  "  bold,  eloquent,  significant."  * 

'Lacratelle  120. 

^Discours  politiques  1:351-360.  For  details  on  banquet  see  Alton- 
Shee  7%. 

•Lacratelle  123. 

*Bien  Public,  quoted  by  Lacratelle  124-5. 


183]  THE  BANQUETS  29 

Although  Ledru-Rollin  was  the  recognized  leader  of  the 
radical  republicans,  he  had  not  as  yet  achieved  much  reputa- 
tion as  an  orator.  Remusat  in  1874  told  Gambetta :  "  Tt 
was  after  February  24  that  Ledru-Rollin  surprised  us;  pre- 
viously he  had  always  spoken  in  a  mediocre  manner  as  a 
good  lawyer,  but  in  a  very  prosy  way."  ^  A  conservative 
even  claimed :  "  He  brought  to  the  Chamber  neither  ability 
nor  distinction  nor  urbanit}'.  He  took  his  seat  but  not  his 
position;  a  lawyer  without  a  name,  without  depth,  he  had 
in  his  head  not  the  spirit  but  the  scenes  of  the  Revolution."  ^ 
Lamartine  asserts  that  "  In  the  eyes  of  the  materialistic 
government  M.  Odilon  Barrot  was  only  honest  eloquence 
without  will-power.  M.  Ledru-Rollin  only  sonorous  popu- 
larity, sounding  the  clarion  of  the  republic  without  believing 
in  it,  in  order  to  disconcert  and  mislead  the  opposition."  '' 

In  their  action  within  the  Chamber  as  well  as  in  the  ban- 
quet campaign,  the  left  (party  of  Thiers,  partv  of  Dufaure, 
dynastic  liberals,  National  republicans)  formed  a  single 
united  group  at  the  end  of  1847.  Only  Ledru-Rollin  was 
not  invited  to  their  councils.*  He  spoke  frequently,  jxirti- 
cullarly  on  colonial  matters,  but  he  made  little  impression. 
The  session  as  a  whole  was  unproductive.  The  govern- 
ment opposed  all  attempts  at  reform,  and  the  mild  proposals 
of  Duvergier  de  Hauranne  for  an  extension  of  the  suffrage, 
and  of  Remusat  to  exclude  office-holders  from  the  1e;^nsla- 
ture  were  defeated  by  the  obedient  majority. 

*  Scheurer-Kestner  103. 

'Granier  de  Cassagnac  i:  117.  The  .same  writer,  speaking  of  Lcdrii 
later  in  his  career,  declared:  "He  was  not  violent,  he  was  extravagant. 
The  glare,  the  noise,  the  sudden  blows  of  the  Convention  went  to  his 
head." — Ihid.,  i  :  317. 

*  lamartine  1:31.     Cf.  .Adam  279. 

^Garnier-Pagcs  4:89  mention-,  one  mcfting  of  the  extreme  left  which 
Ledru  attended. 


-.0    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [184 

Ledrii-Rollin's  devotion  to  the  ideas  of  1793  and  his  ad- 
miration for  the  members  of  the  Convention  were  manifest 
in  all  his  speeches.  Other  persons  were  now  instilling  love 
of  the  first  republic  into  the  country.  The  lectures  of 
Michelet,  Mickiewicz,  and  Quinet  spread  republicanism 
among  the  eager  students  of  the  colleges.  On  the  continent, 
especially  during  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  the 
universities  were  the  hot-bed  of  liberal  thought,  the  soil 
where  the  ideas  of  the  future  germinated.  Equally  im- 
portant were  the  historians  of  the  Revolution.  Even 
Thiers'  work  stirred  people  to  enthusiasm,  but  of  greater 
influence  were  Lamartine's  poetic  (for  it  cannot  be  called 
historical)  panegyric  on  the  Girondins  and  Louis  Blanc's 
eloquent  eulog}'-  of  which  he  dared  to  make  Robespierre  the 
hero.  The  effect  of  these  two  books  was  widespread. 
Everybody  read  them,  and  many  began  to  feel  that  perhaps 
the  republic  had  been  maligned. 

Interesting  light  on  Ledru-Rollin  during  this  period  is 
thrown  by  the  philanthropist,  Melun,  one  of  the  leaders  of 
The  Society  of  St.  Vincent  de  Paul : 

A  few  days  before  the  revolution  I  visited  him ;  he  lived  in  the 
Rue  de  Tournon  in  a  rather  fine  house  .  .  .  for  the  popular 
demagogue  was  rich  and  did  not  affect  the  austerity  of  a  Cato 
or  of  a  Diogenes.  He  received  me  politely;  the  conversation 
without  being  political  concerned  popular  education  and  the 
institutions  best  fitted  for  boys.  I  profited,  by  the  bye,  in  mak- 
ing him  take  lottery  tickets  for  the  benefit  of  my  apprentices, 
a  thing  he  did  gladly.  There  was  nothing  in  the  interview 
that  could  irritate  me ;  only  he  reproached  the  friars  as  having 
an  air  too  vulgar  and  too  unintelligent.  Finally  while  seeing 
me  to  the  door,  he  said:  M.  de  Melun,  %vc  are  both  interested  in 
the  people  although  undoubtedly  in  a  slightly  different  manner. 
Well,  you  can  be  certain  that  if  ever  it  becomes  master,  7ve 
shall  be  the  first  to  be  hanged.     I  laughingly  threw  myself,  to 


185]  THE  BANQUETS  3 1 

escape  his  prediction,  on  my  obscurity  and  on  the  little  noise  my 
work  aroused,  but  he  more  than  once  in  his  political  vicissitudes 
was  very  near  seeing  his  prophesy  realized/ 

The  legislature  reassembled  in  December  2y,  1847,^  and 
immediately  hostilities  began.  The  King  in  his  address 
from  the  throne  spoke  of  the  banquets  as  "  an  agitation  due 
to  blind  and  hostile  passions."  The  phrase  could  not  be 
overlooked  by  the  opposition  and  all  efforts  at  conciliation 
were  fruitless.  Orator  succeeded  orator,  and  on  February 
9  Ledru  entered  the  debate.  He  treated  the  right  of  meeting, 
the  right  to  hold  public  political  assemblies.  He  com- 
menced by  refuting  four  claims  of  Hebert,  the  Keeper  of 
ihe  Seals.  This  government  spokesman  had  claimed  that 
there  was  no  law  authorizing  the  meetings ;  Ledru  protested 
that  it  was  for  the  cabinet  to  find  a  text  forbidding  them; 
and  moreover,  the  constitution  of  1793  did  specifically  per- 
mit them.  H6bert  had  maintained  that  whereas  all  other 
liberties  were  enumerated  in  the  Charter,  liberty  of  meet- 
ing was  not  included  and  hence  did  not  exist;  Ledru  con- 
troverted this :  there  were  many  things  not  in  the  Charter 
that  were  generally  recognized,  such  as  the  sovereignty  of 
the  people  and  the  right  to  speak  in  the  legislature.  The 
Keeper  of  the  Seals  had  stated  that  the  right  of  meeting 
was  the  same  as  the  right  of  association,  the  right  to  form 
political  organizations;  Ledru  asserted  that  his  adversary 
know  the  difference  very  well.  Lastly  Hebert  had  contended 
that  the  right  of  meeting  engendered  the  right  of  association 
expressly  prohibited;  Ledru  affirmed  that  as  a  matter  of 
fact  the  right  of  association  came  first  historically.  How- 
ever, continued  Ledru-Rollin,  the  entire  question  is  one  of 
justice  not  politics.     By  denying  all  unwritten  rights,  the 

'Melun  I  :  262-3. 

*For  official  notice  of  the  opcninjTof  the  Chamber  see  LR  Papers  i  :  197. 


-^2    LEDRU-ROLUN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [i86 

authorities  deny  fundamental  liberties.  Remember  the  ban- 
quets of  1829  and  the  fall  of  Charles  X!  In  an  eloquent 
peroration  the  orator  turned  to  the  left  and  begged  that  it 
cease  all  recriminations  and  unite  on  this  question/ 

Ledru's  sf)eech  was  a  great  success.  ''  For  the  first  time  per- 
haps since  he  sat  in  the  Chamber,  he  was  listened  to  wuth 
serious  attention;  for  the  first  time  also  did  he  rise  to  the 
hights  of  the  orators  of  the  great  assembly.  His  argument 
was  logical,  his  speech  passionate  but  restrained;  his 
eloquence  borrowed,  for  the  sacred  cause  he  defended,  a 
vital  force."  "  Odilon  Barrot  had  feared  that  Ledru  "  would 
bring  the  government  a  useful  diversion  by  his  revolution- 
ary exaggerations ;  such  was  not  the  case ;  he  confined  him- 
self to  treating  with  elevation  and  even  w'ith  relative 
moderation  the  legal  and  constitutional  question  of  the  right 
of  public  meeting."  ^  All  the  newspapers  of  the  left  praised 
the  speech.  The  Reforme,  naturally,  was  eulogistic.  The 
Kationul  declared :  "  M.  Ledru-Rollin  in  a  discourse  justly 
applauded  completely  overturned  the  poor  scaffolding  of 
M.  Hebert."  The  Siecle  wrote :  "  He  profited  very  skillfully 
from  the  mistakes  of  M.  Hebert.  .  .  .  His  argument  was 
concise  ....  and  caused  a  real  sensation  on  the  ministerial 
benches."  Even  the  governmental  D chats  admitted  his  "  real 
ability."  When  Ledru's  oration  w^as  discussed  in  the  pre- 
sence of  the  King,  one  of  the  courtiers  feared  that  such  a 
speech  might  intimidate  the  majority,  but  Louis  Philippe  re- 
plied that  possibly  there  were  "  fifteen  or  so  capable  of  being 
thus  influenced,  but  that  the  government  would  none  the  less 
have  a  majority."  * 

'  Discours  poliiiqites   I  :  361-371. 

*  Stem  1 :  76. 

*  Barrot  i :  492. 
*Marnay  301. 


187]  THE  BANQUETS  33 

The  left  took  up  the  challenge  of  the  government  and 
decided  to  close  the  series  of  banquets  with  a  monster  de- 
monstration in  Paris.  Eighty  deputies  were  to  attend  at 
the  hall  in  the  twelfth  arrondissement  (I^tin  quarter),  but 
on  condition  that  Ledru  should  not  take  part.  Eight  hun- 
dred students  petitioned  that  Ledru  be  allowed  to  speak  at 
the  banquet,  even  if  that  should  cause  the  absence  of  all  the 
other  deputies.  The  extreme  democrats  of  the  organizing 
committee  desired  Ledru's  attendance,  and  the  legitimists 
supported  them,  but  the  members  of  the  dynastic  opposition 
and  the  moderate  republicans  preferred  the  presence  of 
eighty  deputies  to  that  of  one.  Ledru  made  matters  easy; 
he  told  the  organizers  of  the  banquet  that  if  his  colleagues 
in  the  Chamber  objected  to  his  presence,  he  would  not  be 
ofifended  at  being  told  so.  "  I  am  very  much  flattered  by 
the  honor  you  do  me,"  he  said,  "  but  it  is  preferable  that 
eighty  deputies  attend  rather  than  one.  I  advise  you  to 
take  the  greatest  precautions  to  maintain  order  at  the  ban- 
quet, to  authorize  no  republican  or  legitimist  toast,  to  keep 
within  legal  bounds,  so  that  the  authorities  cannot  make 
capital  out  of  any  irregularities  which  would  serve  it  ad- 
mirably, for  it  has  decided  to  use  violence  in  order  to  streng- 
then its  position  since  legality  is  contrary  to  its  existence."  ^ 

The  government  exerted  itself  to  the  utmost  to  prevent 
the  banquet,  threatening  a  direct  prohibition.  Finally 
Thiers  and  others  brought  al>out  a  compromise  between 
Guizot  and  Barrot.  All  the  guests  were  to  appear  at  the 
meeting,  Odilon  Barrot  was  to  take  the  chair,  a  police  com- 
missioner was  to  appear  and  order  the  guests  to  disperse, 
Barrot  was  to  make  a  formal  protest,  the  banquet  was  to 
dissolve,  and  the  case  should  then  be  submitted  to  the  courts. 
February  22  was  the  date  agreed  upon,  but  on  the  twentieth 

'Roinville  23-4,  Castillc  i  :  384-7;  Alton-Shre  84-8;  Cremicux  55. 


34    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [i88 

complications  arose.  The  Reforme  announced  that  Ledru- 
RolHn  would  attend  the  banquet.  Probably  Ledru  was  dis- 
satisfied with  the  compromise  and  wished  to  precipitate  mat- 
ters. His  presence  would  mean  the  attendance  of  the  ex- 
tremists and  the  men  of  the  secret  societies ;  ^  it  would 
threaten  the  control  of  the  banquet  by  the  monarchists.' 
More  important  than  Ledru's  proposed  attendance  w^as  the 
manifesto  drawn  up  by  Armand  IMarrast,  editor-in-chief  of 
the  National  and  the  most  prominent  member  of  the  com- 
mittee in  charge  of  arrangements.  As  the  banquet  was  to 
be  a  mere  simulacrum,  the  demonstration  would  consist 
largely  of  the  procession  to  the  banquet  hall.  Marrast 
published  in  all  the  liberal  newspapers  on  February  21  an 
order  of  march  in  which  the  National  Guard  was  to  march 
as  a  unit.  This  would  constitute  an  act  of  defiance  of  the 
government,  for  the  National  Guard  was  not  supposed  to 
assemble  except  at  the  order  of  its  leaders.  When  Guizot 
heard  of  this  on  February  21,  he  repudiated  his  compro- 
mise with  Barrot  and  definitely  forbade  the  banquet.  Was 
the  left  mildly  to  give  up  the  contest  or  boldly  to  defy  the 
government  ? 

'The  republicans  under  the  July  monarchy  organized   in   secret   so- 
cieties to  overthrow  the  King. 
'See  Alton-Shee  208. 


CHAPTER  III 
The  February  Days 

February  21  was  a  crucial  day.  The  opposition  depu- 
ties gathered  at  Odilon  Barrot's  house.  The  timid  liberal 
monarchists  wished  to  draw  back.  In  spite  of  the  opposi- 
tion of  Lamartine  and  of  Alton-Shee,  the  liberal  peer/  it 
was  decided  that  the  members  of  the  Chamber  should  not 
attend  the  banquet  in  the  twelfth  arrondissement.  Emile 
de  Girardin  suggested  that  the  deputies  of  the  left  should 
hand  in  at  the  Chamber  a  collective  resignation,  but  the 
idea  was  rejected."  All  that  these  deputies  could  agree  on 
was  an  impeachment  of  the  ministry. 

All  hope  of  action  now  depended  on  the  radicals.  Flocon 
invited  his  colleagues  on  the  Rcforme  to  meet  at  8  p.  m.  at 
the  office  of  the  newspaper  to  consider  the  financial  situation 
of  that  journal.  This  summons  deceived  no  one;  all  knew 
that  the  question  of  a  revolution  would  be  discussed.  At 
the  appointed  time  there  asserrtbled  under  Flocon's  presi- 

'  Alton-Shee  was  an  anomaly,  a  republican  peer.  The  followinR  is  his 
opinion  of  Ledru-Rollin :  "  He  was  a  fine  man,  pleasing  and  attractive, 
light-hearted,  rich  among  democrats,  open,  generous,  impressionable, 
credulous  in  his  desires  and  as  to  his  capacity  as  a  statesman,  dreaming 
of  Danton  as  M.  Thiers  of  Napoleon.  Unfortunately  he  lacked  the 
qualities  for  which  he  was  most  ambitious :  firmness,  character.  A  well- 
informed  jurist,  he  knew  lx;ttcr  than  any  one  his  Constituent,  and  par- 
ticularly his  Convention.  .  ,  .  His  natural  eloquence  acquired  an  argu- 
mentative force,  an  audacious  form,  well-calculated  to  deceive  others 
and  himself.  .  .  .  For  want  of  a  lx.'ttcr  man,  the  weak  leader  of  the 
Mountain." — 'Alton-Shee  52. 

*  The  Reforme  of  February  22  made  the  same  suggestion. 

189]  35 


36    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [iqq 

dency  over  sixty  of  the  most  ardent  republicans :  collabora- 
tors on  the  Rcfonne,  delegates  of  the  National  Guard, 
leaders  of  the  secret  societies.  Alton-Shee,  Caussidiere, 
and  others  wanted  the  radicals  to  start  an  uprising,  but 
Louis  Blanc  declared  for  inaction/  Then  Ledru-Rollin 
took  the  floor.  This  was  the  supreme  moment  of  the  meet- 
ing, for  his  influence  was  sufficient  to  turn  the  scale  in 
either  direction. 

If  we  look  at  Ledru's  antecedents,  we  wonder  how  any  one 
could  have  doubted  that  he  would  oppose  an  uprising.  Emile 
Ollivier  later  declared :  "  At  this  time  I  was  well  acqainted 
with  Ledru-Rollin  and  his  friends.  There  is  not  one  of 
them  I  have  not  often  heard  repeat  that  before  the  death 
of  Ledru-Rollin  nothing  could  be  attempted  toward  establish- 
ing a  republic."  '  Ledru  had  never  been  a  member  of  any 
secret  society;  he  had  never  taken  part  in  nor  abetted  any 
conspiracy.  "Consult  all  my  friends,"  he  himself  said 
later,  "  all  those  who  have  fought  with  me,  behind  me ; 
never  under  the  old  government  did  I  wish  to  belong  to  a 
secret  society,  to  a  conspiracy.  Conspiracies  produce  riots ; 
open  discussion  produces  revolutions."  ^  Always  extremely 
violent  in  words,  Ledru  showed  himself  circumspect  if  not 
timid  when  it  came  to  action.*  Yet  by  Alton-Shee  and 
others  his  moderation  was  unexpected.^ 

*  Alton-Shee  223-4;  Sarrans  1:282-5;  Castille  1:137-8;  Delvau  127; 
La  Hodde :  Naissance  40-49 ;  Nougarede  46.  Others  present  were  Albert, 
Etienne  Arago,  Guinard,  Quinet.  and  Thore. 

'Ollivier   i :  470. 

'Speech  of  August  3,  1848,  in  Discotirs  politiqucs  2:44. 

*"  Impetuous  in  his  speech,  but  weak  in  his  acts."  says  Babaud- 
Laribiere  1:17.  'lAn  artist  in  revolutions.  He  loved  fine  gestures  and 
sonorous    words.  .  .  .  Danton    thundering   at   the    Convention    was    his 

model He  loved  splendor  and  enjoyed  life.     The  sight   of  blood 

troubled  him.  ...  A  man  of  the  tribune,  he  was  incapable  of  action. 
Weak  in  character,  he  was  ruined  by  his  friendships."  So  speaks  the 
conservative  Breynat  15-6.     Cf.  N.  Gallois  105. 

'Alton-Shee  225.     Cf.  praise  of  his  moderation  in  Sarrans  r  :  295. 


j^l]  THE  FEBRUARY  DAYS  37 

Ledru  in  the  speeech  which  he  now  dehvered  said : 
"  During  the  first  revolution,  when  our  fathers  appointed 
a  day  for  an  insurrection,  they  organized  for  it  long  in 
advance.  Are  there  enough  of  us?  Have  we  arms, 
munitions,  a  plan  of  battle?  The  government  is  well 
prepared.  It  has  a  numerous  army,  a  formidible  artillery; 
its  troops  merely  wait  a  word  to  overwhelm  us.  I  believe 
a  battle  begun  under  these  conditions  is  utter  folly."  As 
Rey  insisted  on  action,  Ledru  resumed :  "  Let  us  not  take 
our  desires  for  realities.  For  several  months  we  have  been 
gaining  ground;  by  precipitate  action  we  shall  compromise 
the  future,  we  shall  risk  the  annihilation  of  our  party."'  * 
This  speech  decided  the  assembly.  The  police  spy  and  agent 
provocateur,  La  Hodde,'  tried  to  revive  the  sentiment  for 
revolt.  But  the  meeting  favored  Ledru-Rollin.  Quinet 
supported  him,  and  Flocon,  in  closing  the  conference,  ad- 
vised that  those  present  preserve  a  quiet  attitude  unless  a 
special  occasion  offer  itself.  Thus  the  meeting  dissolved, 
having  determined  on  no  course  of  action.  The  next  day 
the  Reforme  deprecated  violence. 

When  dawn  broke  on  the  twenty-second  the  leaders  were 
still  undecided ;  not  so  the  people.  They  paraded  the  streets 
shouting  Down  with  Guizot  or  Hurrah  for  reform,  cheering 

'Alton-Shee  225-6. 

'  When  the  republicans  came  into  power  in  February,  they  discovered 
that  La  Hodde  and  another  member  of  the  secret  societies  named  Chenu 
were  police  spies.  Caussidiere,  then  prefect  of  police,  called  toircther  his 
friends,  tried  the  spies  secretly,  and  would  have  sentenced  them  to  death 
had  not  Albert  intervened.  Caussidiere  had  apologized'  for  Lcdru's 
absence,  but  it  is  uncertain  how  much  Ledru  knew  of  this  irregular 
trial. — See  Chenu  150-8;  Stern  181-3. — Naturally  La  Hodde  had  a  low 
opinion  of  I^dru.  ...  In  his  Naissance  de  la  Rcpublique  30,  381-6, 
La  Hodde  belittles  Ledru's  ability  as  an  orator,  saying:  "his  chief 
characteristics  are  redundacy  and'  boasting,"  and  describes  him  as 
"simply  a  lover  of  noise,  fame  and  enjoyment ...  a  man  of  intellect 
but  without  broad  comprehension,  of  varied  but  superficial  attainments." 


38    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRBNCH  REPUBLIC    [192 

for  Barrot  or  Marrast  or  Ledru-Rollin.  They  erected  bar- 
ricades here  and  there,  but  with  no  definite  system.  Al- 
though the  banquet  had  been  called  off,  the  students  and 
the  workingmen  who  were  to  march  to  it  assembled  at  the 
Madeleine  and  added  to  the  uproar.  Clearly  all  Paris  was 
against  Guizot.  Fortunately  for  the  revolution  the  King 
was  as  undecided  as  his  adversaries.  Had  he  adopted  at 
that  moment  a  policy  of  vigor,  the  uprising  could  have  been 
suppressed;  had  he  adopted  a  policy  of  conciliation  and  dis- 
missed his  obnoxious  ministry,  the  excitement  would  have 
subsided.  But  Louis  Philippe  and  Guizot  espoused  the 
tactics  of  watchful  waiting,  taking  no  effective  measures 
of  any  sort.  Liberal  monarchists  and  radicals  continued  to 
hold  meetings.  A  group  of  republicans  assembled  in  the 
Rue  St.  Honore  in  the  afternoon.  Caussidiere  declared 
that  affairs  were  progressing  well ;  such  was  also  the  opinion 
of  Flocon,  Ledru,  and  Louis  Blanc.  In  the  evening  they 
met  again  in  the  Palais  Royal.  No  definite  measures  were 
taken,  but  they  agreed  that  in  case  of  need  the  secret  socie- 
ties should  assemble  in  the  Boulevard  S.  Martin.^ 

The  twenty-second  closed  in  a  quiet  manner.  The  agita- 
tion seemed  to  be  subsiding.  About  4:30  in  the  morning 
of  February  23  Ledru-Rollin  met  his  confreres  in  a  small 
restaurant  and  the  general  opinion  was  that  there  was  little 
hope  of  a  revolution.  Ledru,  who  had  never  believed  in 
the  success  of  the  uprising  and  who  feared  arrest,  manifested 
his  satisfaction.  Flocon  was  in  an  angry  mood;  only  a 
few  did  not  despair.- 

Although  the  republicans  were  despondent,  Louis  Philippe 
was  equally  so.  Now  the  terrified  king  tried  a  compro- 
mise.    Had  he  abdicated  at  this  moment  in  favor  of  his 

^  Nougarede  85-6. 

'Nougarede  149:  La  Hodde  Naissance  65-6. 


1^3]  THE  FEBRUARY  DAYS  39 

grandson  or  had  he  even  called  Odilon  Barrot  to  the  premier- 
ship, all  would  have  been  well ;  but  from  now  ®n  he  yielded 
step  by  step,  but  always  just  too  late.  What  would  have 
satisfied  the  mob  a  little  earlier  Louis  Philippe  granted  only 
when  the  propitious  moment  was  passed.  Thus  the  king 
on  February  23  dismissed  Guizot  and  called  on  the  colorless 
Mole  to  form  a  cabinet. 

The  Chamber  met  amid  general  agitation.  The  impeach- 
ment of  the  ministers  was  moved  and  merely  aroused  a 
sneer  on  Guizot's  lips.  At  last  Guizot  took  the  floor.  All 
wondered  what  he  could  say;  how  great  was  the  stupefac- 
tion when  he  calmly  announced  that  the  king  had  summoned 
Count  Mole.  The  left  broke  out  into  open  cheers  which 
were  calmed  with  difficulty  by  Barrot.  The  right  and  centre 
were  dumbfounded  at  seeing  themselves  abandoned  with 
such  pusillanimity  by  the  king  they  had  defended  through 
thick  and  thin. 

February  23  had  passed  without  bloodshed,  and  it  looked  as 
though  the  threatening  uprising  might  subside.  But  suddenly 
conditions  altered.  Someone  fired  a  stray  shot  in  the  Boule- 
vard des  Capucines.  Thereupon  the  troops  replied  with  a  vol- 
ley and  scores  of  innocent  bystanders  fell  dead  or  wounded. 
This  spark  ignited  the  smouldering  insurrection.  The 
people  raised  barricades  in  every  part  of  the  city.  A  torch- 
light procession  bearing  the  victims  of  the  massacre  paraded 
the  streets,  leaving  behind  a  trail  of  indignation  and  en- 
thusiasm. The  National  Guard,  which  till  now  had  main- 
tained a  benevolent  neutrality,  threw  in  its  lot  with  the 
people;  the  bourgeoisie  had  joined  the  proletariat. 

ft  was  now  that  Ledru-Rollin  changed  his  ideas  as  to  a 
revolt.  Until  the  resignation  of  ilie  prime  minister  and  the 
events  of  the  Boulevard  des  Capucines  he  had  considered 
an  insurrection  foolish.  Now  he  said  to  his  friends :  "  Even 
if  we  do  not  succeed,  it  will  habituate  the  people  to  street- 


40    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [194 

fighting,  and  if  blood  is  shed,  it  is  on  Barrot  that  the  re- 
sponsibiHty  will  fall."  ^  Ledrn-Rollin  and  Alton-Shee  went 
to  the  offices  of  the  Reforme.  The  leaders  assembled  there 
were  congratulating  each  other  on  the  course  of  events  when 
the  sound  of  an  approaching  crowd  was  heard.  The 
Parisians  loved  to  hear  patriotic  addresses  and  this  group 
had  come  "  to  get  the  password  from  the  Reforme."  After 
Flocon  had  told  the  news  of  Guizot's  fall,  Ledru-Rollin 
praised  the  energy  of  the  people  who  had  broken  the  will  of 
a  despot  and  urged  them  not  to  lay  down  their  arms 
till  they  had  gathered  the  fruits  of  victory.  The  concessions 
they  should  demand  were :  amnesty,  liberation  of  all  political 
prisoners,  recognition  of  the  right  of  meeting,  and  suppres- 
sion of  the  property  qualification  in  voting.  After  the  de- 
puty, the  peer;  Alton-Shee  reiterated  Ledru's  four  demands. - 
The  day  closed  with  the  people  in  open  revolt  clamoring  for 
Barrot  and  reform,  Ledru-Rollin  committed  to  the  cause 
of  revolution,  the  king  terrified  and  yielding  slowly. 

On  the  morning  of  the  twenty-fourth  the  tumult  con- 
tinued, and  the  demands  of  the  people  increased.  They  had 
at  first  demanded  merely  electoral  reform,  then  the  dismissal 
of  Guizot.  Later  no  one  less  than  Odilon  Barrot  would 
be  accepted  as  premier ;  now  the  abdication  of  the  King  and 
the  regency  of  the  Duchess  of  Orleans  was  the  minimum 
demand.  Some  even  w^ent  so  far  as  to  urge  a  provisional 
government  during  the  minority  of  the  Count  of  Paris, 
the  grandson  of  Louis  Philippe.  The  King  yielded  inch  by 
inch,  but  always  wdien  it  was  too  late.  Mole  had  been  unable 
to  form  a  ministry,  and  Thiers,  to  whom  the  King  next 
turned,  insisted  on  the  inclusion  of  Barrot;  but  this  advance 
toward  liberalism  had  been  neutralized  by  the  appointment 
of  Marshal  Bugeaud,  a  cold-blooded  general  and  confirmed 

'Nougarede  156.     Cf.  Barrot  2:304. 
^Alton-Shee  253-4;  Sarrans  1:364-5. 


IQ5]  THE  FEBRUARY  DAYS  4I 

reactionary,  to  the  command  of  all  the  military  forces.  The 
uprising  was  gaining  ground.  Even  the  soldiers  of  the 
line  wavered  in  their  devotion  and  showed  a  repugnance  to 
firing  on  the  revolutionists.  At  last  the  King  made  his 
final  sacrifice;  he  abdicated  in  favor  of  his  grandson  with 
the  Duchess  of  Orleans  as  regent  and  Barrot  as  premier. 
Again  he  had  waited  too  long;  even  this  did  not  now  quiet 
the  people;  they  were  demanding  a  provisional  government. 
The  idea  of  a  provisional  government  which  should  rule 
in  the  name  of  the  Count  of  Paris  was  slowly  growing,  for 
no  one  had  yet  dared  to  propose  a  republic.  Numerous  pro- 
posals for  membership  in  the  new  executive  were  circulated 
through  the  crowds  that  thronged  the  streets.  Of  twenty- 
five  different  combinations,  Arago's  name  appears  on  all 
but  one,  Ledru-RoUin's  on  twenty-one,  Lamartine's  on  nine- 
teen; then  in  order  of  popularity  came  ]\Iarie,  Louis  Blanc, 
Garnier-Pages,  Marrast,  Flocon,  Albert,  Dupont  de  I'Eure, 
Barrot,  Recurt,  Cremieux,  and  Lamennais.  The  centres  of 
agitation  were  the  two  republican  newspapers.  At  the  of- 
ficers of  the  National  a  coalition  with  Odilon  Barrot  was 
preferred  to  one  with  Ledru-Rollin.  There  the  idea  of  a 
provisional  government  was  not  new,  for  several  days  be- 
fore at  Goudchaux's  house  the  project  had  been  discussed 
and  it  had  been  determined  to  eliminate  Ledru  as  well  as 
Louis  Blanc. ^  Now  the  names  of  Francois  Arago,  Garnier- 
Pages,  Lamartine,  and  Marie  were  accepted  unanimously 
by  the  moderates,  assembled  at  the  National  offices,  those 
of  Marrast  and  Barrot  with  difficulty.  Carnot  and  Cre- 
mieux were  rejected.  The  name  of  Ledru-Rollin  caused 
the  longest  discussion.  It  was  finally  rejected,  as  those  pre- 
sent felt  his  time  had  not  yet  come.*     Louis  Blanc  and  his 

'Goudchaux  in  Quentin-Dauchart  Report  i  :288;  Stern  2:  m. 
'Sarrans  1:412-6,  Cremieux  370. 


42    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [196 

brother  arrived  from  the  Rcforme,  but  the  Natio^ial  would 
as  yet  make  no  compact  with  its  rival.  At  the  offices  of  the 
Rcforme  Barrot,  of  course,  was  rejected,  but  many  moderate 
republicans  were  included.  The  accepted  list  consisted  of 
Ledru-Rollin,  Albert,  Arago,  Louis  Blanc,  Flocon,  Marrast, 
aid  Marie.  Later  in  the  morning  Martin  de  Strasbourg  in- 
duced the  National  to  compromise,  and  in  a  conference  with 
Louis  Blanc  a  list  of  nine,  the  same  as  that  finally  adopted 
plus  the  names  of  Albert  and  Cremieux,  was  agreed  on  and 
was  approved  by  the  two  newspapers.^ 

Of  Ledru-Rollin  during  the  morning  we  have  two 
glimpses.  At  ten  o'clock  he  met  General  Bedeau  in  the 
Place  de  la  Concorde.     The  general  declares : 

About  ten  everybody  seemed  disposed  for  peace.  I  was  ac- 
costed at  that  hour  by  a  large  fine  looking  man,  accompanied 
by  a  younger  and  slighter  friend,  as  pale  as  the  first  was  red. 
General,  the  former  said  to  me,  /  see  you  are  making  sincere 
efforts  toward  conciliation;  I  assure  you  we  also  desire  it.  I 
am  Ledru-Rollin,  and  I  am  actively  employed  on  that  mission. 
The  friend  was  M.  Jules  Favre.  Was  M.  Ledru-Rollin  then 
thinking  of  revolution  and  did  he  seek  to  put  my  vigilance  to 
sleep  by  his  words?  I  doubt  it,  and  several  persons  of  the 
revolutionary  party  have  told  me  since  that  at  ten  o'clock  he 
did  not  even  desire  it.- 

At  noon  Ledru  told  some  conservative  deputies :  "  You  have 
no  time  to  lose;  if  in  an  hour  the  abdication  of  the  King  and 
the  regency  are  not  proclaimed,  the  sections  will  come  here, 
disperse  the  Assembly,  and  there  will  be  a  complete  revolu- 
tion.'* ^  As  yet  Ledru  had  not  come  out  for  a  republic  or 
even  for  a  provisional  government. 

'Martin  in  Reforme  June  2,  1848;  Sarrans  i :  422-3. 

^ Revue  de  Paris  for  1898.  3 :  463.     Cf.  Ledru  at  Barbes  trial.  Moniteur 
for  1849,  p.  948. 

'Gamier- Pages  5:112. 


197]  THE  FEBRUARY  DAYS  43 

Another  incident  too  commonly  accepted  is  probably  with- 
out foundation.  Regnault  declares :  "In  a  morning  con- 
ference between  M.  Caussidiere  and  M.  Ledru-Rollin,  it  was 
decided  that  the  former  should  unite  about  him  the  armed 
squadrons  of  the  secret  societies  and  march  on  the  Cham- 
ber." ^  However,  this  would  not  fit  in  with  the  other  two 
incidents  of  the  morning.  Note  especially  the  unlikelihood 
of  Jules  Favre,  who  was  accompanying  Ledru,  being  a  party 
to  deceiving  General  Bedeau.  Secondly  several  persons 
seem  to  have  believed  in  Ledru's  pacific  intentions.  Thirdly 
Caussidiere  did  not  go  to  the  Chamber  but  to  the  prefecture 
of  police.  Fourthly  the  latter  did  not  mention  the  incident 
in  his  memoirs  and  he  is  not  usually  reticent  about  such  mat- 
ters. Fifthly  Regnault  has  a  tendency  to  see  plots  every- 
where; we  shall  come  across  this  trend  of  his  again.  As  to 
the  other  accounts  they  are  either  brief  and  vague  or  they 
have  a  flavor  of  absurdity  and  improbability.^ 

The  centre  of  interest  now  shifts  to  the  Chamber. 
Ledru-Rollin  was  not  yet  ready  to  declare  for  a  republic; 
when  the  extreme  left  held  a  meeting,  he  with  the  other 
members  voted  for  a  regency.^  His  colleagues  overwhelmed 
him  with  questions  and  begged  him  to  use  his  influence  to 
put  an  end  to  the  struggle.  "  No,"  he  told  some  deputies 
of  the  centre,  "  not  until  the  people  had  obtained  all  the 
satisfaction  they  have  the  right  to  demand."  * 

The  session  of  the  Chamber  began  a1>out  one   o'clock  ;i 

^Regnault  56.     Cf.  Nougarede  224;  Sarrans  12:  15;  Gallois  68. 

'Cremicux  367  accepts  the  story.  Stern  1:223  1)elievcs  it  "devoid  of 
all   foundation." 

^  Spcctateur  de  Londres  July  i;  Lamartine  1:134,  lUind  in  Frascr's 
Magazine  91 :  243-4  declares  that  Ledru  told  him  personally  that  he, 
Ledru,  had  won  Lamartine  over  to  the  idea  of  a  republic.  But  there  is 
no  corroboration  for  this  statement  and  Blind  often  makes  mistakes. 

*  Carnot  in  Revolution  dc  18486:  24^;  Sarrans  1:456. 


44    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [igg 

half  an  hour  later  the  Duchess  of  Orleans  entered  the  hall, 
accompanied  by  the  Duke  of  Nemours,  her  two  sons,  and 
several  deputies.  One  of  the  latter,  Dupin,  was  forced  into 
the  tribune  and  in  a  woefully  weak  speech  proposed  the  re- 
gency of  the  Duchess/  Lamartine  demanded  that  the  ses- 
sion be  suspended  till  the  members  of  the  royal  family  had 
retired,  and  Sauzet,  the  conservative  president,  with  char- 
acteristic weakness  agreed,  thereby  abandoning  the  only 
hope  of  obtaining  the  regency.  x-Vfter  Oudinot  had  de- 
fended the  claims  of  the  Duchess,  Marie  of  the  National 
openly  demanded  a  provisional  government.  He  was  sup- 
ported by  Cremieux ;  this  was  important,  for  it  was  the  nrst 
defection  from  the  ranks  of  the  liberal  monarchists.  A' 
legitimist,  Genoude,  declared  that  only  an  appeal  to  the 
people  could  decide  the  future  form  of  government.  Barrot 
now  appeared  in  the  tribune  and  made  a  final  appeal  in  be- 
half of  the  Duchess :  "  As  for  me,  I  cannot  take  the  respon- 
sibility of  civil  war.  The  regency  of  the  Duchess  of 
Orleans  with  a  ministry  of  the  most  reliable  men  will  give  a 
more  certain  guarantee  of  liberty,  and  an  appeal  to  the 
countr}'  ....  can  then  be  made,  and  made  without  leading 
to  civil  war."  Barrot  closed  with  the  declaration  that  he 
was  in  favor  of  true  liberty.^ 

A  legitimist,  La  Rochejaquelin,  was  the  next  speaker; 
he  was  interrupted  by  the  entrance  of  a  small  band  of 
armed  men,  whose  leader  advanced  and  planted  the  tricolor 
in  the  tribune  in  spite  of  the  resistance  of  the  president. 
Many    deputies    left    the    hall.     Tumult    reigned.     Many 

'By  the  law  of  184:2  the  Chamber  had  granted  the  regency  to  the 
Duke  of  Nemours,  uncle  of  the  Count  of  Paris,  but  he  was  unpopular; 
accordingly  the  King  in  abdicating  had  named  as  regent  the  new  king's 
mother,  thus  illegally  by  his  own  authority  abrogating  a  formal  law  of 
the  legislature. 

"  Afoniieur,  February  25.  When  no  reference  for  parliamentary  de- 
bates is  given,  the  Moniieur  of  the  following  day  is  meant. 


jgg]  THE  FEBRUARY  DAYS  45 

orators  crowded  to  the  tribune.  Cremieux,  Lamartine,  and 
Ledru-Rollin  pushed  to  the  front.  The  latter  succeeded  in 
attracting  the  attention  of  the  mob. 

This  was  the  moment  for  which  Ledru  had  been  waiting- 
for  years.     Lamartine  says  concerning  it : 

Almost  the  only  republican  in  the  Chamber,  inspirer  of  the 
republican  press,  orator  of  democratic  banquets,  declared 
opponent  of  all  compromises,  of  all  reservations,  of  all  half- 
hearted movements  by  the  dynastic  left,  a  man  who  carried 
his  opposition  inside  the  Chamber  to  the  point  where  factious- 
ness began,  and  outside  to  the  point  where  it  became  sedition, 
M.  Ledru-Rollin,  young,  well-built,  with  a  full-blooded  coun- 
tenance, impetuous  in  voice  and  gesture,  but  preserving  the 
deliberate  coolness  of  a  politician  under  the  apparent  frenzy  of 
an  orator,  seemed  the  man  prepared  for  and  demanded  by  the 
occasion.  His  words,  strongly  affected  by  a  study  of  the  forms 
of  popular  eloquence,  possessed  the  slightly  posthumous  accents 
of  the  Convention.  The  language  of  Danton  breathed  again 
in  his  orations.  His  facile  and  rich  imagination  seemed  to 
turn  to  the  past  for  a  model  for  the  future,  and  he  seemed  to 
regret  the  lost  opportunity  for  struggle,  for  glory,  for  immortal 
death  in  the  vanished  drama  of  the  great  revolution.  Isolated 
at  the  extreme  left  of  the  Chamber  in  a  premature  republican- 
ism, M.  Ledru-Rollin  was  remarked  only  for  his  ability.  His 
colleagues  had  up  to  that  time  listened  to  him  rather  with 
curiosity  than  with  terror ;  in  their  eyes  he  was  merely  a  revolu- 
tionary ghost;  to  their  ears  he  was  only  the  sonorous  echo  of 
a  time  forever  silent  and  buried.  Suddenly  the  roles  had 
changed.  It  was  his  colleagues  who  were  in  tli'.-  past ;  it  was 
the  impossible  that  had  become  the  reality.^ 

"  In  the  name  of  the  people  you  represent,  I  demand 
silence,"  cried  Ledru-Rollin  in  his  stentorian  voice;  the  mob 
caught   up  the  cry:   "In   the  name  of   M.    Ledru-Rollin, 

'  Lamartine  i  :  132. 


46    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [200 

silence!"  In  relative  quiet,  but  amid  numerous  interrup- 
tions the  orator  continued : 

In  the  name  if  the  people  everywhere  in  arms,  master  of  Paris 
...  I  come  to  protest  against  the  kind  of  government  just 
advocated  from  this  tribune.  And  this  is  not  the  first  time 
I  have  protested,  for  in  1842  during  the  discussion  of  the 
regency  law  I  alone  in  the  chamber  declared  it  could  not  be 
passed  without  an  appeal  to  the  people.  (La  Rochcjaquelin: 
I  also.) 

You  have  been  told  of  the  glorious  constitution  of  1789; 
see  to  it  that  the  people  who  speak  of  it  understand  its  true 
spirit.  ...  In  1791  in  the  very  text  of  the  constitution  it  was 
declared  that  the  Constituent  Assembly,  the  Constituent  As- 
sembl}^  you  understand,  with  its  special  powers,  did  not  have 
the  right  to  pass  a  regency  law,  but  that  an  appeal  to  the  people 
was  necessary.  .  .  .  Well,  gentlemen,  for  two  days  we  have 
been  fighting  for  that  right.  If  you  resist,  if  you  dare  assert 
that  a  government  by  acclamation,  an  ephemeral  government 
.  .  .  exists,  we  shall  fight  on  in  the  name  of  that  constitution 
of  1791  which  soars  above  our  history.  .  .  .  Suddenly,  without 
due  deliberation,  you  break  the  law  you  passed  in  spite  of  our 
opposition  in  1842.  You  do  not  desire  it.  That  expedient 
would  gain  no  adherents  in  the  country.  In  the  name  of 
justice,  which  must  be  respected  even  in  revolutions.  ...  I 
protest  against  your  new  usurpation.  .  .  .  The  shedding  of 
blood  aflfects  us,  it  can  cease  only  when  principles  of  justice  are 
satisfied.  ...  In  the  name  of  the  people  which  is  everything, 
I  ask  you  .  .  .  what  guarantee  your  law  gives  us. 

At  this  point  one  of  the  few  deputies  of  the  centre 
who  remained  protested.  One  of  the  mob  menaced  the 
interrupter  with  a  sabre,  but  he  was  restrained  and 
the  interlocutor  removed  by  the  deputies  themselves.^ 
The  Chamber  was  tiring  of  this  oratory  which  seemed  to 

^Siecle,  February  25. 


201  ]  THE  FEBRUARY  DAYS  47 

come  to  no  conclusion  and  Berryer,  a  legitimist  member 
cried:  "Conclude!  The  provisional  government!"  Reg- 
nault  and  others  claim  that  Ledru  was  merely  trying  to  gain 
time  till  Caussidiere  should  arrive  with  his  legions;  we 
have  seen  the  improbability  of  this  theory.  In  their  opinion 
Ledru  only  stopped  when  he  felt  sure  that  Lamartine  would 
hold  forth  at  his  usual  length.  It  is  far  more  likely  that  the 
novelty  of  the  situation  to  the  orator  caused  the  vacuity  of 
his  speech;  he  was  at  last  playing  a  leading  part  in  the 
history  of  France,  and  this  overpowered  him  for  the  only 
rime  in  his  career. 

"In  1815,"  Ledru  continued,  "Napoleon  wished  to 
abdicate  in  favor  of  the  King  of  Rome.  The  country  was 
opposed,  the  country  refused.  In  1830  Charles  X  wished 
to  abdicate  in  favor  of  his  grandson.  The  country  was 
opposed,  the  country  refused."  Again  Berryer  interrupted 
him:  "We  know  our  history,  conclude!"  Then  at  last 
Ledru-Rollin  arrived  at  the  point  for  which  everyone  had 
been  waiting  since  the  beginning  his  speech:  "Today  the 
country  is  opposed  and  you  can  do  nothing  without  con- 
sulting it.  To  sum  up,  therefore,  I  demand  a  provisional 
government,  named  not  by  the  Chamber  but  by  the  people, 
a  provisional  government  and  the  immediate  calling  of  a 
convention  to  establish  the  rights  of  the  people."  ^ 

This  oration  was  not  highly  thought  of  at  the  time  and 
certainly  is  inferior  to  the  later  addresses  of  the  popular 
tribune.  Lamartine  followed  Ledru  and  also  advocated 
a  provisional  government ;  it  was  the  weakest  of  the  poet's 
discourses  during  these  trying  days. 

By  this  time  only  a  handful  of  deputies  were  left  in  the 
Chamber,  meml)ers  of  the  extreme  left  and  the  extreme 
right.     Dupont  de  I'Eure,  the  patriarch  of  republicanism, 

'  Discours  poUtiqucs  i  :  372-4. 


^8    LEDRV-ROLLIN  AXD  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [202 

was  forced  into  the  chair.  He  read  ^  a  Hst  of  seven  names 
as  the  provisional  government.  His  own  and  those  of  Lam- 
artine,  Ledru,  and  Arago  met  with  universal  approval,  those 
of  Gamier-Pages,  Marie,  and  Cremieux  with  slight  opposi- 
tion. Diipont  and  Lamartine  then  left  to  go  to  the  Hotel 
de  Ville.  Ledru-Rollin  was  almost  the  only  deputy  re- 
maining in  the  Chamber.  He  seemed  to  think  it  wise  to 
have  the  provisional  government  more  formally  proclaimed 
by  the  populace  present.  He  made  a  brief  speech  and  the 
seven  names  were  again  approved,  though  there  were  a  few 
noes  against  Gamier- Pages  and  Marie".  It  was  now  about 
four  o'clock  and  Ledru  in  his  turn  set  out  for  the  city  hall. 
He  soon  caught  up  with  his  colleagues.  The  processsion 
proceeded  amid  the  cheering  throngs  with  drum  beating  and 
colors  fl}'ing.  A  shabby  public  hack  had  been  found  for 
Dupont.  The  other  members  walked  arm  in  arm  with 
their  friends.  Jules  Favre  and  Felix  Pyat  accompanied 
Ledru.  The  people  took  off  their  hats  out  of  respect  for 
the  newly  chosen  executives.  Finally  the  members  of  the 
provisional  government  reach  the  square  in  front  of  the 
Hotel  de  Ville.  In  vain  those  who  accompanied  them  tried 
to  force  a  way  through  the  dense  masses.  Individually  the 
new  governors  of  France  had  to  push  on  to  the  city  hall.' 
It  was  during  this  journey  that  Ledru  made  his  celebrated 
remark  to  Lamartine  "  We  are  marching  to  Calvary."  * 

*  There  is  much  doubt  as  to  who  read  the  names;  the  Monitcur  is  here 
followed.  Alton-Shee  143  and  Louis  Blanc  i :  71  attribute  the  reading 
to  Ledru,  but  they  probably  had  in  mind  the  second  reading  a  little  later. 
Still  other  writers  assert  that  Cremieux  read  the  list,  taking  occasion 
to  insert  his  own  name. 

^Monitcur  for  1848,  p.  501. 

=>  Gamier- Pages  5:295;  Sarrans  2:43;  La  Hodde :  Societes  secretes 
486 ;  Robin  i  :  343. 

*  Speech  of  August  3.   1848 — Discours  politiqitrs  2:43. 


203]  THE  FEBRUARY  DAYS  49 

At  the  Hotel  de  Ville  Garnier- Pages  had  just  been  pro- 
claimed mayor.'  As  soon  as  the  crowd  recognized  Ledru 
they  opened  a  passage  for  him  amid  cheers.  Placed  on  a 
platform,  he  made  a  speech,  asserting  the  sovereignty  of  the 
people  but  avoiding  the  question  of  the  proclamation  of  the 
republic.  From  there  he  was  carried  by  the  crowd  into  a 
room  of  the  city  hall.  Here  the  people  insisted  on  ratify- 
ing the  election  of  all  the  members  of  the  provisional  gov- 
ernment. Dupont  was  accepted  without  a  speech.  Ledru 
mounted  a  wobbly  table,  told  of  the  naming  of  the  pro- 
visional government,  and  praised  the  populace  for  asserting 
its  sovereignty.  He  hoped  that  the  people  would  decide  in 
favor  of  a  republic,  but  he  did  not  suggest  that  it  be  im- 
mediately proclaimed."  He  and  Lamartine  were  greatly 
cheered.  Arago,  Garnier-Pages,  Marie,  and  the  absent 
Cremieux  were  also  accepted,  although  with  less  enthusiasm. 
After  these  seven  members  had  retired  from  this  room, 
Flocon  and  Louis  Blanc  spoke,  openly  advocating  a  republic, 
and  they  were  acclaimed  members  of  the  government. 

No  deliberation  could  be  held  amid  the  crowd,  and  ac- 
cordingly Ledru  and  his  colleagues  had  withdrawn  to  the 
chamber  of  the  municipal  council.  When  the  crowd  in- 
vaded this  room,  they  moved  to  an  office  adjourning  that 
of  the  prefect  of  the  Seine,  then  to  that  of  the  secretary- 
general. '"^ 

Once  more  the  government  had  to  interrupt  its  discussion 

'  Leon  de  Malevillc  had  refused  to  act  as  his  assistant ;  for  a  letter  of 
Maleville  on  this  subject  sec  appendix. 

'Sarrans  2:42;  Reaumont-Vas.sy  4:11.}:  .Stern  1:245;  ^-ii  Flodde: 
Socictes  secretes  486-7;  Blanc  71-2;  r.)rcvet  22;  Lavarenne  26-7.  All 
these  state  or  imply  that  Ix;dru  did  not  proclaim  the  republic.  Hut 
Robin  I  :  243  quotes  a  letter  to  himself  from  I'elix  Pyat :  "  f  found  you 
.standing  beside  Lcdru-Rollin  who  was  pr(x:laiming  tlie  republic,"  and 
Delvau  249  makes  a  similar  .statement. 

*  Stern  i  :  247  ;  Sarrans  2  :  44 ;  Drevet  22. 


50   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [204 

to  appear  before  the  people.  The  cheering  was  so 
loud  that  Dupont  de  TEure  could  not  make  himself  heard. 
But  at  the  sound  of  Ledru's  voice  silence  was  established. 
Ledru  related  the  proceedings  at  the  Chamber  of  Deputies, 
the  nomination  by  the  people  of  a  provisional  government 
which  recognized  that  its  rights  and  powers  came  from  the 
populace.  The  crowd  confirmed  by  acclamation  the  acts  of 
the  Chamber.  Still  it  was  not  completely  satisfied.  The  pre- 
sence of  Ledru  in  a  government  with  six  moderates  did  not 
seem  a  sufficient  guarantee  of  advanced  sentiments,  and  the 
ultra-revolutionary  followers  of  Blanqui  declared  that  the 
ideas  of  Ledru-Rollin  must  prevail.  The  mob  shouted  Pro- 
claim the  Republic!  and  a  workingman  waved  a  scroll  on 
which  could  be  read :  Three  Cheers  for  the  Republic!  Ac- 
cordingly Ledru  replied  that  the  republic  was  the  unanimous 
desire  of  the  provisional  government,  and  that  the  govern- 
ment would  summon  all  France  to  a  constituent  assembly 
which  could  found  the  republic.  He  asserted  that  he  shared 
the  desire  of  the  people,  that  the  popular  will  was  for  him 
law,  and  that  he  would  retire  with  his  colleagures  to  deli- 
berate on  the  form  of  the  proclamation  of  the  republic. 
This  declaration  was  received  with  wild  enthusiasm. 
Ledru's  spech,  which  Garnier-Pages  called  "  wise,  opportune, 
full  of  enthusiasm  and  energy,"  had  not  absolutely  satisfied 
the  crowd,  though  it  had  put  it  in  a  better  humor;  Lam- 
artine  followed  and  his  magic  eloquence  carried  away  those 
who  heard  him  as  it  was  to  do  again  and  again  during  the 
next    few   days.^ 

Several  outsiders  were  present  while  the  provisional  gov- 
ernment deliberated.  A  feeling  of  brotherhood  pervaded 
all  who  were  gathered  together.  There  had  been  disagree- 
ments between  the  radicals  like  Ledru  and  Flocon  and  the 

'Garnier-Pages  5:302-3;  Stern  1:247;  Laviron  13-14;  Robin  1:344-5. 


205]  THE  FEBRUARY  DAYS  5 1 

moderates  like  Garnier-Pages  and  Carnot,  but  their  com- 
mon victory  was  a  bond.  As  soon  as  Garnier-Pages  saw 
Ledru-Rollin,  he  held  out  his  hand  and  said:  "  Let  us  for- 
get our  quarrels.  Let  us  have  only  one  wish,  one  desire, 
that  of  consecrating  ourselves  to  the  safety  of  our  country, 
to  the  success  of  democracy,  to  the  definite  triumph  of  the 
republic."  Ledru  warmly  shook  the  proffered  hand  and 
said :  "  Those  are  my  sentiments ;  I  was  looking  for  you  to 
tell  you  so."  Carnot  also,  who  had  been  repeatedly  attacked 
in  the  Reforme,  embraced  Flocon  and  Ledru-Rjollin.^ 

It  was  now  seven  o'clock  in  the  evening  and  Lamartine 
was  busy  drawing  up  a  draft  proclamation  which  contained 
the  phrase :  "  The  provisional  government  declares  that  the 
republican  form  is  adopted  provisionally."  On  Ledru's 
suggestion  republic  replaced  republican  form.  All  agreed 
and  the  manifesto  was  sent  off  to  the  printer.*  The  pro- 
visional government  next  turned  to  the  distribution  of  min- 
istries. Dupont  de  I'Eure  was  unanimously  chosen  president 
of  the  council.  He  was  too  old  to  take  a  portfolio.  No 
opposition  was  made  when  Marie  chose  for  his  ministry 
that  of  public  works  and  Lamartine  that  of  foreign  affairs. 
Garnier-Pages  was  fully  occupied  with  the  mayoralty  of 
Paris.  Cremieux  wrote  his  name  down  opposite  commerce 
and  then  asked  Ledru  to  choose  that  which  suited  him  best, 
*'  Whichever  you  wish,"  was  the  modest  reply.  Garnier- 
Pages,  supported  by  Marie  and  Pagnerre,  pointed  out 
Ledru's  aptitude  for  the  ministry  of  justice  and  the  need  in 
that  post  of  a  strong  man  capable  of  carrying  through 
lasting    reforms.     Ledru    accepted,    but    when    Cremieux 

'Garnier-Pages  5:302;  Carnot  67. 

*  Garnier-Pages  5:305-6;  Delvau  250;  Sarrans  J:  44;  St.  Aniant  7; 
Hugo  1 :  319-320.  It  was  never  published  as  a  later  manifesto  replaced 
it.  For  the  proceedings  at  the  Hotel  dc  Ville  the  account  of  Garnier- 
Pages  is  followed;  his  account  is  the  fullest  and  most  sequacious. 


^2    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [206 

pointed  out  the  desirability  of  having  the  interior  depart- 
ment in  the  hands  of  a  popular  figure,  a  man  who  should  re- 
present the  active  element  of  the  revolution,  Ledru  after  a 
brief  consultation  with  his  friends,  changed  his  mind  and 
accepted  the  ministry  of  the  interior/  Cremieux  was  then 
forced  to  take  the  ministry  of  justice.  The  navy  went 
to  Frangois  Arago.  This  provided  for  the  seven  members 
of  the  government.  The  remaining  portfolios  were  given 
to  Carnot  (education),  Bethmont  (commerce  and  agricul- 
ture), Goudchaux  (finances),  and  Bedeau  (war)."^  Pag- 
nerre  became  secretary-general  of  the  government.  Cav- 
aignac  was  made  governor  of  Algeria. 

Now  the  council,  at  the  suggestion  of  Bixio  and  Pagnerre 
and  despite  the  protests  of  Ledru  and  Cremieux,  decided  to 
reconsider  their  proclamation  of  a  republic.  But  before 
they  could  decide  on  the  manifesto  to  replace  it,  there  came 
a  new  interruption.  Louis  Blanc,  accompanied  by  Flocon 
and  Marrast,  entered  and  demanded  that  they  three  and  the 
workingman  Albert  l^e  admitted  to  a  place  in  the  govern- 
ment. He  based  his  claim  to  this  place  on  the  lists  in  the  re- 
publican newspapers  and  on  the  acclamations  he  had  received 
in  the  streets  and  in  the  city  hall.  This  addition  was  strongly 
opposed.  The  ex-deputies  felt  that  the  government  was  al- 
ready overlarge.  The  admission  of  even  Cremieux  had  been 
contested  by  Marie  and  Garnier-Pages.  The  inclusion  of 
these  four  new  men  would  bring  the  council  up  to  the  un- 
wieldy number  of  eleven.  Moreover,  as  three  of  them  be- 
longed to  the  Rcforme  group,  the  moderates  felt  that  their 
power  would  be  thereby  decreased.  Arago  showed  himself  the 
most  energetic  in  opposing  them,  and  the  quarrel  became  so 

' Garnicr-Pages  5:312-3.  Carnot  declares:  "I  was  offered  the  min- 
istry of  the  interior,  I  refused  " ;  but  there  is  no  other  evidence  to  sup- 
port this  assertion. — Revolution  dc  1848,  6:29. 

2  Later  in  the  day  Bedeau  refused ;  see  infra,  p.  54. 


207]  THE  FEBRUARY  DAYS  53 

heated  that  Louis  Blanc  was  on  the  point  of  appeahng  to  the 
mob  when  Ledru-RoUin  intervened  and  urged  him  in  the  name 
of  patriotism  not  to  sow  discord  in  the  ranks  of  the  new  re- 
public. Flocon  and  Marrast  immediately  agreed  and  ac- 
cepted Garnier-Pages's  suggestion  that  the  four  new  can- 
didates be  included  as  secretaries  only.  Louis  Blanc,  un- 
supported, was  obliged  to  yield/  This  inferior  rank,  howr 
ever,  was  soon  forgotten,  and  within  three  days  they  were 
treated  as  regular  members  of  the  provisional  government. 

The  council  now  took  up  again  the  question  of  the  pro- 
clamation of  the  republic.  "  The  scene  is  worth  describ- 
ing "  says  Louis  Blanc  "  M.  de  Lamartine  appeared  radiant, 
M.  Ledru-RoUin  resolute,  M.  Cremieux  excited,  M.  Marie 
suspicious  and  sombre.  The  face  of  M.  Dupont  de  I'Eure 
showed  noble  resignation.  M.  Marrast's  lips  had  their 
customary  smile,  a  smile  of  light  and  mocking  scepticism. 
M.  Garnier-Pages  seemed  to  be  surprised  at  our  presence. 
As  to  M.  Arago,  how  little  like  himself  I  found  him!  "  ^ 

The  question  before  the  council  admitted  of  three  solu- 
tions. Flocon,  Louis  Blanc,  and  Ledru-Rollin  demanded 
the  immediate  and  unconditional  proclamation  of  the  re- 
public. Dupont  de  I'Eure,  Arago,  and  Marie  asserted  that 
they  had  no  authority  to  make  such  an  assertion.  Lamar- 
tine, Garnier-Pages,  and  Cremieux  held  a  middle  ground 
favoring  proclamation  subject  to  ratification  by  a  constituent 
assembly.  Marrast  was  silent.  The  argument  waxed 
fierce.  Louis  Blanc  was  particularly  violent.  Ledru- 
Rollin  spoke  in  a  spirit  of  conciliation;  the  victory  had 
calmed  him  and  the  responsibility  of  office  already  weighed 

'.Stern  1:249-250;  Garnier-Pag-es  5:318-321;  Robin  1:348.  Blanc  i: 
76  insists  that  the  four  were  admitted  immediately  as  full-fledged  mem- 
bers, but  on  the  decree  summoning  a  constituent  assembly  he  himself 
signed  Louis  Blanc,  secretary.  For  a  facsimile  of  this  document  see 
Stern,  end  of  volume  i. 

*  Blanc  1 :  75. 


54    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [208 

on  him.  Finally  a  version  by  Lamartine  was  accepted: 
"  Although  the  provisional  government  acts  solely  in  the 
name  of  the  French  people  and  although  it  prefers  the  re- 
publican form  of  government,  neither  the  people  of  Paris  nor 
the  provisional  government  pretends  to  substitute  its  opinion 
for  the  opinion  of  the  citizens  who  will  be  consulted  on  the 
definitive  form  of  government  which  the  sovereignty  of  the 
people  will  proclaim."  Although  this  statements  "  did  not 
suit  *'  Louis  Blanc  and  although  he  found  it  "  singularly 
equivocal,"  he  accepted  it  after  prefers  had  been  changed  to 
believes  in}  But  Ledru  refused  to  sign  so  ambiguous  a 
proclamation,  and  Flocon  struck  out  his  signature  on  finding 
that  Ledru  would  not  add  his." 

Ax  this  point  the  provisional  government  interrupted  its 
proceedings  in  order  to  receive  General  Bedeau,  who  refused 
the  ministry  of  war,  but  who  accepted  the  command  of  the 
first  military  division  (Paris).  The  General  insisted  that 
discipline  must  be  maintained,  that  the  officers  must  be  up- 
held, that  no  attention  must  be  paid  to  denunciations  of 
military  leaders.  Garnier-Pages  and  Lamartine  promised 
him  their  support.  "  I  also  promise  you  what  you  ask,  for 
I  understand  its  importance,"  said  Ledru-Rollin.^  He 
never  swerved  from  this  assurance.  The  war  department 
was  now  given  to  General  Subervie. 

The  failure  to  receive  the  signatures  of  Ledru  and  Flocon 
caused  a  reconsideration  of  the  proclamation  of  the  republic, 
and  each  member  now  spoke  in  turn.  Ledru-Rollin  began. 
He  told  how  the  people  clearly  wished  for  a  republic. 
"  Whether  the  members  of  the  provisional  government  wish 

'Blanc  1:85. 

'  Stern  i :  253 ;  Carnot  in  Revolution  de  1848,  6 :  32.  For  facsimile 
with  signatures,  see  Stern,  end  of  volume  i.  The  entire  manifesto  was 
very  long ;  only  the  vital  phrase  has  been  quoted. 

'  Bedeau  in  Rczmc  de  Paris  for  1896,  3 :  477. 


209]  '^HE  FEBRUARY  DAYS  55 

it  or  not,  the  republic  is  proclaimed,"  he  said.  "  How  can 
you  hesitate  to  confirm  the  wishes  of  the  people,  which  is 
the  law?  "  Flocon  seconded  this  speech  in  almost  identical 
words.  Louis  Blanc  declared  that  the  republic  was  the  only 
form  of  government  by  the  people.  Garnier-Pages  desired 
its  immediate  proclamation.  "  Well,  the  affair  is  settled," 
said  Ledru,  but  Garnier-Pages  insisted  that  the  others  be 
heard.  Marie  opposed  haste.  Dupont  and  Arago  repeated 
that  a  provisional  government  had  no  right  to  initiate 
a  republic.  Cremieux  then  proposed  that  Lamartine's  para- 
graph be  replaced  by :  "  The  provisional  government  pro- 
claims the  republic  subject  to  ratification  by  the  people  who 
will  be  immediately  consulted."  Lamartine,  Carnot,  and 
Marrast  approved  this  version.  Garnier-Pages  suggested 
the  substitution  of  wishes  for  proclaims,  and  this  modifica- 
tion was  accepted.  Then  all  signed;  a  happy  solution  had 
been  found.^ 

But  these  important  affairs  were  not  the  only  matters 
which  the  government  had  to  decide.  Numerous  decrees  and 
appointments  took  up  much  time.'  The  question  of  the 
royal  family  was  brought  up.  "  Bah,"  said  Ledru-Rollin 
"  let  them  go ;  "  and  no  order  for  their  arrest  was  issued."'' 
Already  prominent  officers  began  sending  in  their  adhesion 
to  the  republic* 

'Garnier-Pages  5:339-347.  For  proclamation,  see  Monitcur  for  1848, 
p.  499. 

'  Most  appropriately  the  first  decree  that  Ledru  signed  proclaimed  the 
abolition  of  slavery.  The  second  repealed  the  taxes  on  salt  and  wood. 
The  third,  which  he  had  great  difficulty  in  obtaining  from  the  govern- 
ment, established  a  home  for  old  and  infirm  workingmcn. — iDelvau  297-9- 

•Garnier-Pages  5:349-350.  Later  Ledru  opposed  the  confiscation  of 
the  Orleanist  property;  he  destroyed  several  projects  of  confiscation 
drawn  up  by  Jules  Favrc. — Stern  3 :  78. 

*  Later  the  reading  of  these  letters  of  devotion  took  up  so  much  time 
in  council  meetings  that  Ledru  asked  what  value  there  was  in  these 
declarations  "on  the  part  of  men  ever  ready  to  swear  new  oaths,"  and 
the  government  no  longer  troubled  itself  with  them. — Rcgnault  91. 


^6    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [210 

Soon  after  the  proclamation  of  the  repubhc,  about  mid- 
night of  February  24,  Ledru  left  the  Hotel  de  Ville  for 
the  ministry  of  the  interior,  but  he  did  not  go  there  directly. 
He  wandered  through  the  capital,  pacifying  the  street- 
fighters.  He  visited  the  prefecture  of  police,  heard  from 
Caussidiere  and  Sobrier  how  they  had  taken  possession  of 
the  prefecture,  conferred  with  them  on  the  situation,  and 
received  from  them  the  keys  to  the  secret  funds  of  the 
treasury/ 

Thus  on  February  24  the  revolution  of  1848  was  com- 
pleted. Four  days  earlier  hardly  any  one  had  expected  an 
uprising;  few  had  desired  one;  no  one  had  dreamed  of  the 
immediate  proclamation  of  the  republic.  But  now,  to  the 
great  surprise  of  all.  and  not  least  of  the  chief  actors  in  the 
drama,  the  republic  was  an  actuality  and  all  France  acclaimed 
it.  The  King  and  all  the  members  of  the  royal  family  were 
in  flight,  a  provisional  government  composed  of  republicans 
had  been  installed  and  was  now  ruling  the  country  with 
Ledru-Rollin  as  a  member  and  as  minister  of  the  interior. 

1  Lamartine  i  :  182.  204-5 ;  Garnier-Pages  6 :  29. 


CHAPTER  IV 

The  Minister  of  the  Interior 

Ledru-Rollin  was  what  the  French  call  un  bel  homme, 
but  his  personal  appearance  would  not  appeal  to  Anglo- 
Saxon  tastes.  He  was  a  large  man  with  a  powerful  frame 
but  too  fat.  Good  nature  was  reflected  in  his  features,  and 
the  strength  of  his  jaws  and  of  his  eyes  was  contradicted 
by  the  flabbiness  of  his  cheeks.  Contemporaries  naturally 
differed  in  their  descriptions  of  him.     Jules  Favre  says : 

Ledru-Rollin  belonged  to  that  race  of  privileged  beings  whom 
the  hand  of  God  has  marked  with  the  seal  of  their  predestin- 
ation. He  was  born  an  orator,  an  athletic  tribune.  A  large, 
well-set  .  .  .  chest,  a  massive  head  attached  to  robust  shoulders 
by  a  neck  both  ample  and  graceful,  a  firm  and  cadenced  walk, 
gravity  and  decision  in  each  of  his  movements,  the  natural 
authority  of  his  features  made  of  him  a  type  of  physical 
force  and  intellectual  superiority.^ 

Audebrand  is  less  laudatory : 

A  sort  of  giant,  a  kind  of  modern  Danton  with  a  bourgeois 
figure.  A  large  chest,  a  voice  of  fine  quality.  Enough  natural 
gifts,  enough  knowledge  also,  so  that  there  was  in  him  a  natural 
orator.  .  .  .  He  had  a  countenance  of  insipid  beauty.  Some 
of  his  friends  said  in  a  whisper:  that  is  not  a  Brutus;  he  has 
the  rosy  figure  of  a  Dolabclla.  His  paunch  was  Rabelaisian. 
.  .  .  His  sybarite  traits  never  let  him  lose  sight  of  the  interests 
of  the  cause  to  which  he  was  devoted;  perhaps  he  might  even 
be  accused  of  being  too  zealous.^ 

'  Favre  345-6. 

^  Revue  Bleue  46:  179. 

211]  57 


^8    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [212 

Estimates  of  his  character  differed  equally.     Louis  Blanc 
writes : 

A  very  keen  and  nervous  temperament,  a  political  energy  tem- 
pered by  fresh  and  engaging  manners,  zealous  will-power, 
integrity,  a  violent  desire  to  insure  the  triumph  of  the  revolu- 
tion, an  oratorical  talent  of  the  first  order  .  .  .  were  set  off 
by  a  good  figure,  an  imposing  form,  and  a  certain  magnetism. 
.  .  .  M.  Ledru-Rollin,  a  generous  and  confiding  character  with 
the  nature  of  an  artist,  was  less  capable  of  offending  a  friend 
than  of  courageously  holding  his  own  against  an  adversary,  a 
fact  which  made  him  too  accessible  to  the  influence  if  his  en- 
vironment. .  .  .  He  was  haunted  by  glorious  visions  of  the  first 
republic,  and  he  would  gladly  at  one  stroke  have  revived  the 
past.  He  did  not  pay  sufficient  attention  to  the  thinkers  of 
the  nineteenth  century.^ 

On    the    other    hand,    Persigny,    the    friend    of    Louis 
Napoleon,  declares : 

In  person  he  was  a  big  fellow,  a  jovial  voluptuary,  of  whom 
nature  wished  to  make  an  honest  lx>urgeois  .  .  .  but  whom 
flattery  and  vanity  pushed  to  ambition  for  popular  honours. 
An  able  lawyer,  but  with  few  brains  and  little  courage,  made 
to  be  dominated  by  the  violence  of  his  party  and  not  to  guide 
it,  puffed  up  with  pride,  filled  with  chimeras.- 

^  Blanc  1:280-1.  Similarly  Castille  2:39  says:  "He  is  too  honest, 
too  good-hearted,  too  affectionate  to  resemble  Danton.  .  .  .  There  is 
much  of  the  artist  in  his  frankness,  generosity,  and  sweet  and  friendly 
manners.  ...  He  is  not  a  thinker  or  a  philosopher  but  a  true  orator." 

*  Persigny  72-3.  The  Orleanist,  Ernest  Charles,  writes  in  the  Rczuc 
Bleue  12:519.  "Ledru-Rollin  far  surpassed  Barrot  in  lack  of  fore- 
sight, in  stupidity,  and  in  vanity."  The  extreme  revolutionist,  Lavarenne, 
80,  144  describes  Ledru  as  follows :  "  Popular  tribune  and  marvellous 
agitator,  he  felt  boiling  in  his  veins  the  blood  of  the  old  Mountain ;  but 
he  lacked  the  means  or  the  force  to  bring  about  his  desires.  ...  He  was 
a  demagogue  .  .  .  totally  lacking  in  political  capacity."  Mirecourt  5-13. 
52-4,  68-70,   77  describes   Ledru  as   "a  supenb  orator   but  a   mediocre 


213]  THE  MINISTER  OF  THE  INTERIOR  59 

The  best  estimate  of  Ledru-Rollin  is  probably  that  of 
Daniel  Stern,  the  Countess  d'Agoult,  whose  republican  salon 
became  well-known  under  the  second  empire : 

Ledru-Rollin  was  an  indolent  but  able  lawyer  ...  a  man  of 
easy  habits  and  nonchalant  humor,  fond  of  comfort,  even 
luxury.  .  .  .  The  natural  weakness  of  his  character  and  his 
inexperience  in  political  matters  led  him  into  errors  from  which 
the  republic  suffered.  He  allowed  himself  to  be  led  by  sub- 
ordinates. .  .  .  Neither  his  sincere  but  emphatic  patriotism, 
nor  his  open  and  generous  but  unstable  character,  nor  even  his 
natural  uprightness,  too  often  perverted  by  his  love  of  popu- 
larity, fitted  him  for  leadership.  He  realized  this  incapacity 
.  .  .  and  fearing  lest  he  should  not  impose  success,  he  wished 
to  inspire  terror.  .  .  .  This  man  whom  the  provinces  consid- 
ered a  terrorist  .  .  ,  this  children's  bogy  .  .  .  has  the  best  of 
hearts,  is  without  hatred,  is  the  most  easily  influenced  of  men. 
An  optimistic  conspirator,  a  lazy  minister,  above  all  a  pleasant 
political  comrade  ...  a  man  of  entrancing  eloquence  and  no 
evil  passions  .  .  .  but  of  no  lofty  statesmanlike  conceptions. 
.  .  .  M.  Ledru-Rollin  belonged  to  that  class  of  republicans  who 
have  a  mediocre  idea  of  the  reasoning  power  of  the  people  and 
preserve  even  in  their  search  for  popularity  a  certain  air  of 
condescension.^ 

politician,  resembling  the  grotesque  and  pleasant  hero  of  Cervantes 
whose  head  was  turned  by  books  of  chivalry  ...  in  that  his  reason 
was  perverted  by  wretched  revolutionary  literature.  .  .  .  He  was  am- 
bitious and  unintelligent  .  .  .  extravagant  ...  a  devil  of  a  Lovelace 
.  .  .  self-seeking." 

1  Stern  1:27-8,  62,  65-6;  2:41;  Lcttrcs  rcpublicaines  No.  16,  pp.  9- 11. 
This  last  statement  is  born  out  by  other  writers,  Marx  13  calls  him  the 
representative  not  of  the  proletariat  but  of  the  small  traders.  Herzen 
2:298  makes  a  similar  remark.  The  conservative  Chamier  1:212-3 
writes :  "  His  personal  appearance  is  highly  favorable  .  .  .  but  marks  a 
haughty  aristocrat  rather  than  a  leveling  republican.  .  .  .  He  speaks  with 
great  force  and  fluency.  .  .  .  }Ie  is  a  man  of  unquestionable  ability,  of 
great  perseverance."  Napoleon  Gallois  105-7  describes  his  friend,  Ledru, 
as  an  aristocrat  by  fortune,  a  democrat  by  heart,  a  clever  conversation- 


6o    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [214 

Perhaps  this  description  is  too  severe,  but  it  does  indicate 
Ledru's  outstanding  characteristics. 

Naturally  a  man  in  Ledru's  position  was  the  target  of 
numerous  calumnies.  Pamphlets  against  him  were  hawked 
about  in  the  streets;  songs  ridiculing  him  were  sung  in 
aristocratic  salons.  The  press,  Orleanist  and  Bonapartist, 
clerical  and  ultra-revolutionary,  made  every  kind  of  wild 
accusation.  "  One  member  of  the  provisional  government," 
says  John  Stuart  Mill, 

has  been  a  mark  for  greater  inveteracy  of  assault  than  the  rest : 
M.  Ledru-Rollin.  Everybody  has  heard  scandalous  stories  con- 
cerning him ;  and  in  his  case  some  of  these  were  specific  and 
accompanied  by  name  and  circumstances.  If  those  that  did 
not  enter  into  particulars  had  no  better  foundation  than  those 
that  did,  M.  Ledru-Rollin  as  to  personal  integrity  is  the  states- 
man of  most  unimpeachable  character  in  Europe.^ 

Ledru  declared  in  the  Constituent  Assembly : 

In  the  period  of  trouble  and  anguish,  day  and  night  I  watched 
without  slacking.  It  was  by  an  absolute  devotion  to  my  duties 
that  I  replied  to  the  infamous  calumnies  of  which  I  have  been 
the  object.  I  have  never  seen  in  this  unexampled  outburst 
anything  except  an  additional  reason  to  defend  with  greater 
intrepidity  a  cause  which  the  fury  of  certain  fanatics  wished 
to  injure  by  attacking  me.  I  have  trusted  in  the  good  sense  of 
the  nation,  in  the  justice  of  the  Assembly,  and  I  thought  that 
as  a  soldier  of  the  revolution  I  should  suffer  all  for  it  and  not 
lose  in  refuting  odious  calumnies  the  precious  time  that  its 
services  claimed  of  me.- 

alist  of  artistic  tastes,  lazy  except  when  aroused  by  a  sense  of  duty. 
Bouton,  an  extreme  revolutionist,  says  of  Ledru:  "Insincere,  without 
virtues,  he  has  no  stability  at  all.  Vain,  the  fool  of  popularity,  loving 
the  people  only  at  a  distance,  he  does  not  possess  the  true  revolutionary 
force." 

1  Mill  367-8.    Cf.  Delvau  366-8;  Audebrand  in  Rcz-uc  Blcuc  46:  179. 

2  Speech  of  May  6,  1848,  Discours  politiques  2 :  25. 


215]  THE  MINISTER  OF  THE  INTERIOR  6 1 

He  was  accused  of  wild  extravagance  and  licentiousness, 
exorbitant  luxury  and  drunkenness.  In  the  provinces  the 
story  was  spread  that  Le  Due  Rollin  indulged  in  orgies  with 
two  courtesans,  La  Marline  and  La  Marie }  Garnier-Pages 
and  Pagnerre  took  a  day's  holiday  to  hunt  in  the  forest  of 
Chantilly.  The  account  was  changed  and  elaborated  by  the 
royalist  press  and  the  Constitutionnel  printed :  "  News  of 
the  court :  Yesterday  there  was  a  luncheon  at  the  Petit 
Trianon.  There  were  women.  M.  Ledru-Rollin  was  host. 
There  was  also  a  hunt  at  Chantilly."  This  was  the  only 
calumny  to  which  Ledru-Rollin  deigned  to  reply.  He 
denied  the  statement  categorically  and  added :  "  Since 
February  24  I  have  not  left  Paris  for  a  moment;  out  of 
twenty- four  hours,  I  devote  twenty  to  work."  "  A  drunken 
man  abused  the  National  Guard;  an  officer  of  that  body 
without  any  investigation  spread  the  story  that  the  drunkard 
was  Ledru.^ 

The  commonest  form  of  vilification  consisted  of  attacks 
on  Ledru's  abuse  of  his  ministerial  position.  It  was  claimed 
that  he  insisted  on  the  release  from  Brest  prison  of  a 
dangerous  forger,  that  he  gave  the  position  of  director  of 
the  Opera  Comiqiie  to  pay  an  old  debt,  that  he  gave  public 
positions  to  his  valet,  to  the  husband  of  his  wife's  maid,  to 

'  Caussidiere  2:6;  St.  Ferreol :  Proscrits  1:326;  Blanc  2:50-1.  For 
amusing  story  of  an  actress,  see  Regnault  t6o-i  ;  Blanc  2:34;  Robin 
148-9. 

^  Constitufioiuicl.  April  27,  28;  Blanc  2:33;  Regnault  159-160.  In 
answer  to  Ledru  the  Constitutionnel  declared  the  whole  affair  a  joke. 
It  said:  "If  Ledru-Rollin  has  not  done  for  the  pcoi)le  ail  the  good  he 
desires,  it  is  not  because  he  has  not  been  wide  enough  awake,  but  be- 
cause he  has  not  slept  enough." 

'  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  1:244;  2:272-4.  In  October  Lcdru  sued 
this  officer  for  libel.  The  court  decided  that  malice  had  not  !>ccn  proved 
and  assigned  costs  to  the  plaintiff.  .At  the  same  time  I^edru  had  sued 
several  other  persons  for  calumny,  but  the  court  held  that  it  was  incom- 
petent as  Ledru  was  a  public  official. — Monitcur  for  1S4S,  2732.  2812-4. 


62    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [216 

a  cousin,  to  a  revolutionist  as  a  reward  for  killing  a 
stable  boy  who  was  defending  Louis  Philippe's  horses,  that 
he  had  taken  £14,000  from  the  public  funds  and  placed  them 
to  his  credit  in  an  English  bank,  that  Goudchaux,  minister 
of  finances,  resigned  because  he  would  not  agree  to  Ledru's 
financial  extravagance/ 

Fulsome  laudation  was  equally  common.  Songs  were 
written  in  praise  of  him.  Medals  were  struck  in  his  honor.^ 
A  citizen  of  Roubaix  wanted  to  call  his  son  Ledru-Rollin 
Victor.^  The  father  of  Juliette  Adam  was  of  the  opinion 
that :  "  A  Ledru-Rollin,  a  Louis  Blanc  is  the  continuator  of 
Christianity."  * 

That  Ledru-Rollin  was  scrupulously  honest  and  not  even 
over-extravagant  there  seems  to  be  little  doubt.  On  August 
21,  1848  Ledru  defended  in  the  Assembly  his  expyenditures : 

What  do  you  have  at  the  ministry  of  the  interior  ?  Two  things. 
Those  expenses  that  were  ordered  for  general  services :  these 
the  minister  merely  signs,  as  you  know ;  the  chief  accountant 
distributes  to  the  employees  the  sums  indicated  in  the  budget. 
.  .  .  Besides  these  there  are  the  secret  funds.  .  .  .  Well,  these 
secret  funds  .  .  .  remained  below  the  abnormal  average  exist- 
ing under  the  late  monarchy.  .  .  .  The  budget  of  1847  could 
not  foresee  the  establishment  of  the  Garde  Mobile,  of  the  Guar- 
dians of  Paris,  of  the  commissioners  sent  into  the  departments, 
the  organisation  of  universal  suffrage,  the  men  who  sought  aid 
from  the  ministry  of  the  interior.  ...  All  this  was  taken  from 
the  secret  funds. 

*  Quentin-Bauchart  iReport  i :  232,  297,  334-5,  347 ;  Monitcur  for  1848, 
2732;  Constitutxonnel,  May  18,  1848,  January  i,  1849;  Courier  dc  Lyon, 
March  25,  1851 ;  Voix  du  Proscrit  1:348-350;  Lantcrne,  May  4,  1848; 
Tirel  60-63;  Mirecourt  72;  Bonde  48. 

*  For  letter  about  one  such  medal,  see  appendix. 
3  Archives  departementales  of  Lille  M  134/24. 
*Adam  256. 


217]  ^^^  MINISTER  OF  THE  INTERIOR  63 

Ledru  gives  further  details  as  to  expenses  and  ends  with  a 
declaration  of  the  impossibility  of  concealing  misuse  of 
funds.^ 

A  through  examination  was  made  by  the  hostile  and 
conservative  Ducos  commission.  Agreeing  with  an  earlier 
report,  Roger  Ducos  declared  to  the  Constituent  Assembly 
that  the  great  expenditure  was  justified  by  the  extraordinary 
times  and  that  there  were  no  irregularities.  Though 
entitled  to  two  hundred  thousand  francs, 

M.  Ledru-Rollin  took  no  salary  as  minister  of  the  interior  .  .  . 
As  under  the  administration  of  his  predecessors,  M.  Ledru- 
Rollin  delivered  a  great  number  of  orders  to  bearer,  l3Ut  we 
must  recognize  that  he  took  great  care  to  stipulate  on  each  one, 
except  five  or  six  for  sums  of  no  great  importance,  either 
mention  of  its  destination  or  the  initials  of  the  person  for  whom 
it  was  destined.  Thanks  to  this  precaution,  which  the  previous 
ministers  did  not  think  necessary  to  take  because  they  were 
accountable  to  no  one  but  the  king  ...  it  has  been  possible 
for  us  ...  to  obtain  explanations  about  each  one  from  M. 
Ledru-Rollin. 

Various  economies  were  pointed  out.  A  few  expenses  were 
blamed:  expenditures  by  some  of  the  commissioners,  rail- 
road-fare to  foreign  workingmen  returning  to  their  own 
country,  money  to  watch  his  colleagues  in  the  government. 
But  Ducos  admitted  that  every  single  outlay  was  regular." 
A  more  complete  justification  of  the  minister  would  be 
difficult  to  find. 

Most  of  the  strictures  on  T^dru's  administration  of  the 
home  department  were  the  result  of  the  personnel  of  the  min- 

'  Discours  politiqucs  2  :  59-64. 

'  Ducos  report,  presented  April  14,  1849,  published  Mottiicur  1552-9, 
1532.  For  excellent  discussions  of  the  subject  of  expenditures,  sec 
Antony  and  La  Place  de  Chauvac. 


64    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [218 

istry.  But  this  was  more  the  resuh  of  the  situation  than  the 
fault  of  the  minister.  All  the  trained  official  were  monarch- 
ists ;  so  choice  had  to  be  made  between  retaining  experienced 
men  who  were  not  in  sympathy  with  the  reforms  to  be  insti- 
tuted or  leaving  the  work  to  friendly  but  inexperienced  repub- 
licans. In  his  circular  of  March  8  Ledru  gaye  his  solution : 
"  Political  offices  is  no  matter  what  degree  of  the  hierarchy 
must  be  filled  with  tried  republicans.  .  .  .  Less  rigor  need 
be  used  in  regard  to  officials  whose  role  is  purely  administra- 
tive. Those  may  be  maintained  who,  strangers  to  all  poli- 
tical action,  have  reached  their  position  by  useful  services."  ^ 

^lost  of  the  higher  offices  were  filled  with  competent  men. 
When  Ledru-Rollin  arrived  at  the  ministry  of  the  interior, 
he  found  it  occupied  by  Andryane,  a  former  prisoner  of 
Austria  who  had  passed  some  time  in  the  dungeons  of  the 
Spielberg,  and  whom  the  provisional  government  had  ap- 
pointed under-secretary  of  the  interior  department  without 
consulting  Ledru.  Andryane  had  already  on  his  own 
authority  signed  the  liberation  of  Teste,  an  ex-minister  of 
Louis  Philippe,  who  had  been  condemned  for  bribery. 
Ledru  insisted  on  the  retirement  of  Andryane  and  obtained 
his  resignation,  but  not  without  difficulty.'  For  a  time 
Flocon  acted  as  under-secretary,  but  either  he  felt  that  a 
subordinate  position  did  not  become  a  fellow-member  of  the 
government  or  believed  that  he  could  be  of  more  service  by 
representing  the  radicals  at  council  meetings  instead  of  de- 
voting himself  to  the  details  of  administration.  No  one 
succeeded  him  as  under-secretary. 

Jules  Favre  was  secretary-general  and,  after  Ledru,  un- 
doubtedly the  most  important  person  in  the  department.  His 
position  in  politics  is  almost  inexplicable.  At  heart  cer- 
tainly a  republican  and   seemingly  a   radical,   in   the  Con- 

^  Discours  poUHqucs  2:2-3.    See  also  Regnault  151-2. 

*  Stern  2:66-7;  Regnault  151,  154;  Constltutionncl.  February  25. 


219]  THE  MINISTER  OF  THE  INTERIOR  65 

stituent  Assembly  he  was  to  exert  his  eloquence  to  over- 
throw a  ministry  of  his  party.  One  of  Ledru's  closest 
friends  and  partisans  in  February,  Favre  later  in  the  year 
violently  attacked  him.  In  his  relations  with  George  Sand, 
Favre  seeined  to  be  leading  Ledru  toward  socialism;  yet 
generally  he  was  a  moderating  force.  Regnault  calls  atten- 
tion to  Favre's  respect  for  legality  in  contrast  to  Ledru 
who  cared  little  for  it.^  In  spite  of  their  differences, 
throughout  his  term  of  office,  Ledru-Rollin  placed  the 
greatest  reliance  upon  Jules  Favre. 

Ledru-Rollin's  chief  of  cabinet  was  Elias  Regnault,  a 
moderate  of  the  National  group,  but  a  loyal  supporter  of 
the  minister  in  all  his  reforms.  He  was  a  newspaper  man 
from  Le  Mans  and  had  aided  the  election  of  Ledru  in  that 
city.  Although  always  ready  with  counsels  of  moderation 
(and  therefore  the  hete  noir  of  the  extreme  revolutionists), 
he  was  by  no  means  a  conservative  but  an  advocate  of  slow 
progress  and  reform.  He  was  not  a  man  of  extraordinary 
ability,  but  a  painstaking  and  reliable  official.  Regnault's 
opinion  of  his  chief  was  as  follows : 

In  taking  under  his  direction  the  ministry  of  the  interior  M. 
Ledru-Rollin  did  not  deceive  himself  as  to  the  weight  of  the 
task  on  which  the  success  of  the  repu])Hc  depended.  With  an 
ardent  desire  to  develop  new  institutions,  to  awaken  republican 
sentiments  in  the  departments,  he  judged  himself  proper  for 
the  role  he  had  chosen  and  boldly  took  his  place  in  the  ministry 
of  the  interior,  that  centre  of  the  most  reactionary  traditions 
and  most  hostile  passions.  Audacious  by  temperament  and 
naturally  progressive,  he  was  not  frightened  by  obstacles  or  ill- 
will,  and  for  the  mission  which  he  accepted  he  had  no  need  of 
apprenticeship,  or  rather  he  had  served  his  apprenticeship  in 
the  struggles  of  the  tribune  and  the  press.  Tn  purely  admin- 
istrative matters,  experience  has  its  value ;  in  ix>litical  matters, 

'Regnault  155. 


66    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [220 

it  is  routine  that  is  called  experience,  and  M.  Ledru-Rollin 
knew  that  it  was  against  routine  that  he  would  have  to  fight. 
.  .  .  Prompt  in  action  and  quick  in  thought,  he  was  unequalled 
in  the  facility  with  which  he  seized  on  the  different  phases  of  a 
question.  .  .  .  When  a  new  subject  was  presented  for  discus- 
sion, he  needed  only  to  provoke  a  short  argument,  and  at  the 
end  of  a  rapid  conversation  he  could  mount  the  tribune,  full 
of  his  subject  and  able  to  throw  light  on  a  question  to  which 
he  had  hitherto  given  little  thought  .  .  .  Without  having  the 
brilliance  or  grandeur  of  M.  Lamartine,  M.  Ledru-Rollin  made 
a  deeper  impression  on  the  hearts  of  the  masses,  and  with  less 
diffuseness  went  straight  to  the  point ;  with  less  poetry  he  had 
more  fire.^ 

The  direction  of  the  police  department  was  in  the  hands 
of  Carteret,  who,  like  Regnault,  was  a  hard-working  official, 
a  moderate,  loyal  to  Ledru-Rollin.  The  prefect  of  police 
was  that  colossal  revolutionary  Caussidiere,  of  whom  we 
shall  hear  more  later.  The  head  of  the  political  police  was 
Carlier,  one  of  those  clever  weathercocks  who  violently 
advocate  the  doctrines  of  whatever  party  is  in  power  or 
soon  will  be.  When  the  reaction  set  in  during  July  1848,  we 
shall  find  him  turning  against  his  former  chief.  Later  still 
he  was  to  become  one  of  Louis  Napoleon's  notorious  prefects 
of  police. 

The  private  secretar}'-  of  Ledru  was  Delvau,  an  extreme 
revolutionist.  Delvau  regretted  that  his  leader  had  accepted 
a  cabinet  position,  believing  that  he  would  have  better  served 
the  interests  of  the  country  as  leader  of  the  opposition.  In 
support  of  this  position  he  mentioned  the  case  of  Mirabeau 
and  called  Danton's  acceptance  of  a  portfolio  the  cause  of 
his  overthrow.  He  continually  bewailed  the  fact  that  the 
minister  was  not  sufficiently  revolutionary.  At  the  same 
time  he  absolutely  w^orshipped  his  chief  and  believed  him 

f  *  Regnault  152-3, 


22 1  ]  THE  MINISTER  OF  THE  INTERIOR  67 

"  the  man  of  the  hour  "  and  one  of  the  greatest  men  of  all 
the  ages.     Describing  him  more  in  detail,  Delvau  said : 

He  was  the  man  of  the  masses,  the  popular  tribune  par  excel- 
lence. .  .  .  He  had  a  strong  and  resonant  voice  which  pro- 
foundly stirred  those  who  heard  it.  He  had  a  sanguine  tem- 
perament combined  with  ardor,  impatience,  anger.  .  .  .  His 
countenance  was  lighted  up  by  a  smile  of  irresistible  kindness 
.  .  .  and  his  glance  revealed  power  and  nobility.  .  .  .  Ledru- 
Rollin  led  a  life  overfilled  with  work.  Ardent  in  the  task  he 
had  undertaken,  desirous  to  prove  his  devotion  to  the  people 
by  his  acts  and  by  his  words,  he  laboriously  filled  the  hours  of 
each  day  so  well  that  it  took  all  the  energy  of  his  will,  re- 
enforced  by  the  energy  of  his  robust  temperament  to  resist 
fatigue  and  sickness.  He  arose  at  six  in  the  morning  and  went 
to  bed  regularly  at  two  hours  after  midnight.  Twenty  hours 
of  work,  ye  chroniclers  who  calumniate  him  so  freely.^ 

Constantly  at  Ledru's  elbow,  Delvau  continually  urged  him 
on  to  action  and  probably  to  a  break  with  his  moderate  col- 
leagues in  the  provisional  government.'  Very  likely  the 
private  secretary  was  the  centre  of  these  intrigues  with  Caus- 
sidiere,  Sobrier,  Blanqui,  Flotte,  and  other  extremists,  which 
are  supposed  to  have  issued  from  the  ministry  of  the  interior. 
For  head  of  the  division  of  Beaux-Arts  Ledru's  first 
choice  was  Etienne  Arago,  the  dramatist.  Arago  would 
have  been  glad  to  accept,  but  he  was  already  director  of 
posts  or,  as  we  call  it,  postmaster-general,  and  his  subor- 
dinates insisted  on  his  retaining  this  position.''  In  spite  of 
this  refusal,  Etienne  Arago  remained  an  influence  at  the 
ministry  of  the  interior;  like  Ledru-Rollin  himself,  he  was 

*  Delvau  285-304,  367. 

'  The  moderate,  Cuvillier-Fleury  i  :  267-283  jiictures  Lcdru  as  a  weak 
man,  subject  alternately  to  the  good  influence  of  Rcgnault  and  the  bad 
influence  of  Delvau. 

'  Arapo  42-3. 


68    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [222 

a  radical  but  co^ciliator^^  Finally  the  office  was  given  to 
the  painter  Jeanron.  This  choice  was  universally  applauded. 
Lockroy,  the  dramatist,  was  appointed  head  of  the  bureau  of 
theatres ;  he  played  no  part  in  political  affairs. 

The  minor  officials  in  the  department  were  less  satisfac- 
tory. The  men  connected  with  the  Reforme,  the  men  of 
the  secret  societies,  all  those  who  were  ultra-revolutionary 
through  self-interest,  hastened  to  the  ministry  controlled  by 
a  radical,  and  many  obtained  positions.  Their  chief  con- 
cern was  not  their  work  but  the  revolutionizing  of  the 
country.  Some  of  these  men  were  undoubtedly  adven- 
turers, but  most  were  probably  fanatics  with  a  love  for 
almost  anarchic  liberty.^  Many  of  the  old  professonal 
bureaucrats  were  also  retained  in  the  ministry.  Between 
these  two  classes  of  men,  the  one  trying  to  urge  the  minister 
on  too  rapidly,  the  other  unwilling  to  aid  in  any  change, 
there  was  constant  antagonism.  Ledru-Rollin  simplified 
the  administration  to  a  slight  extent  and  made  some  changes 
in  order  to  do  away  with  monarchical  practices  or  to  intro- 
duce economy.  Too  radical  measures  he  dared  not  under- 
take. His  loyalty  to  the  government  of  which  he  was  a 
member  was  unimpeachable  and  he  knew  that  the  controll- 
ing moderates  would  not  support  him  in  a  thorough  pro- 
gram of  reform.     On  May  6,  1848  he  told  the  Assembly: 

I  would  have  preferred  to  introduce  into  the  mechanism  of  the 
department  changes  destined  to  make  it  more  simple  and  more 
democratic.  I  thought  that  these  reforms  should  not  be  isolated 
and  partial  and  that  they  could  be  more  wisely  accomplished 
by  him  who  would  receive  definite  authority  from  your  hands. 
I  feared  to  stir  up  trouble  in  the  department  at  the  moment 

^  The  non-political  bureau  of  fine  arts  was  an  exception :  "  Ledru- 
Rollin  had  separated  art  from  the  passion  of  parties,"  says  Garnier- 
Pages  8 :  85. 


223]  ^^^  MINISTER  OF  THE  INTERIOR  69 

when  it  was  most  essential  to  preserve  its  smooth  and  regular 
operation.^ 

Whenever  any  definite  case  of  abuse  of  their  position  on 
the  part  of  the  radicals  was  discovered,  it  was  immediately 
rectified.  For  instance,  Carlier  recruited  some  ex-political 
prisoners  to  act  as  a  guard  for  the  ministry.  Some  of  these 
men  composed  over-revolutionary  placards  and  issued  them 
from  the  ministry  of  the  interior.  As  soon  as  Carteret 
pointed  out  this  action,  Ledru  dismissed  the  culprits." 

The  labor  of  the  minister  was  enormous.  He  had  to  re- 
ceive numerous  deputations  and  grant  a  never-ending  series 
of  interviews;  people  came  who  desired  places  for  them- 
selves, or  maybe  for  their  wives'  relations;  others  came 
merely  to  give  advice  or  to  gain  protection  for  some  organi- 
zation. Life-long  monarchists  did  not  hesitate  to  come  to 
the  radical  minister,  assure  him  of  their  devotion  to  the  re- 
public, and  l>eg  favors.^  Melun  came  to  ask  protection  for 
the  Society  of  St.  Vincent  de  Paul.  "  As  soon  as  we  ar- 
rived," says  this  conservative  philanthropist,  "  he  ordered 
us  to  be  admitted,  listened  to  our  observations,  and  assured 
us  that  the  republic  and  its  ministers  had  no  such  hostile  in- 
tentions as  we  supposed,  that  it  was  a  calumny  to  say  so. 
We  felt  more  satisfied  with  his  reception  than  with  his  com- 
panions, and  he  kept  his  word  to  us."  * 

^  Discours  politiqucs  2:25-6.  See  also  Lavarcnne  146;  Regiiault  156. 
The  few  changes  made  were  abolished  by  Senard  and  his  successors  in 
the  ministry. 

*  Carteret  in  Qucntin-Cauchart  Report   1:252. 

*  Regnault  153  writes:  "Every  day  deputations  presented  themselves 
at  the  ministry  .  .  .  some  bringing  congratulations,  others  complaints. 
To  both  M.  Ledru-<Rollin  showed  himself  always  ready  to  reply,  some- 
times by  brief  outbursts  of  oratory,  sometimes  by  adroit  defense  or 
paternal  reprimand."     Cf.  Delvau  367. 

*  Melun  1:263-4.     For  another  incident  see  Lavarcnne  150. 


■JO   LEDRU-ROLUN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBUC    [224 

A  typical  office-seeker  was  the  young  Ulbach,  who  desired 
the  position  of  sub-commissioner  and  who  presented  him- 
self before  Ledru  with  a  "  certificate  of  civism  "  which  he 
had  obtained  through  family  connections  from  the  minister's 
wife.  "  That  was  my  sole  title  to  the  favor  of  the  gov- 
ernment," says  Ulbach,  who  later  l>ecame  a  prominent  demo- 
cratic journalist. 

Let  me  say  immediately  that  it  seemed  insufficient.  Ledru- 
Rollin  put  the  paper  under  his  elbow  so  as  not  to  confuse  it 
with  more  serious  papers.  I  was  received  and  dismissed  with 
an  encouraging  smile;  that  was  all.  As  I  entered  the  min- 
ister's office,  a  lady  was  leaving.  I  recognized  George  Sand. 
...  I  found  in  the  office  one  of  my  compatriots  .  .  .  this  was 
a  pretext  to  remain.  .  .  .  The  office  of  the  minister  was  filled 
with  people.  Ledru-Rollin  was  smiling  affably,  speaking  in  a 
loud  voice  to  those  he  could  salute  with  the  name  of  combattant 
or  martyr  and  defending  himself  in  a  low  voice  against  the  un- 
known solicitors  who  surrounded  him.  ...  I  have  never  seen 
a  finer  head,  exhibiting  more  contentment,  radiating  more 
serenity  than  the  head  of  M.  Ledru-Rollin.  His  great  fore- 
head, his  eyes,  his  mouth,  his  quivering  nostrils,  all  indicated 
the  orator.  ...  On  the  slightest  pretext  he  raised  his  voice. 
...  I  retain  a  precise  recollection  of  that  morning,  the  tumult 
of  the  audience,  and  even  a  procession  of  several  prefects  of 
Louis  Philippe  who  came  to  offer  Ledru-Rollin  their  devotion.' 

Such  was  the  man  Ledru-Rollin;  such  were  some  of  his 
assistants;  and  such  were  the  conditions  under  which  he 
worked.  The  tasks  to  which  he  was  compelled  to  apply 
himself  were  most  varied.  Some  of  the  most  important 
we  shall  consider  later,  such  as  the  organization  of  universal 
suffrage,  the  commissioners  to  the  departments,  the  famous 
circulars,  the  Bulletins  of  the  Republic,  the  reorganization 
of  the  National  Guard.     The  minor  topics  are  too  numerous 

*  Ulbach  41-2;  Revue  Bleue  25:  263. 


225]  ^^^  MINISTER  OF  THE  INTERIOR  yi 

to  mention ;  they  include  such  matters  as  the  reorganization 
of  the  government  pawn-shops,  the  appointment  of  com- 
mittees to  study  reforms,  even  in  agriculture,  and  the  im- 
provement of  highways  and  byways.^ 

Public  charity  also  fell  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  de- 
partment of  the  interior.  Ledru-Rollin  deplored  the  small 
amount  of  money  at  his  disposal,  but  did  the  best  he  could. 
Particular  aid  was  given  to  those  who  had  been  wounded  in 
the  street  fighting  of  the  February  Days.  The  minister 
made  repeated  visits  to  the  hospitals  where  these  unfortun- 
ates were  treated,  spoke  to  them  individually  in  his  affable 
manner,  and  distributed  relief  to  their  families." 

Ledru  gave  particular  attention  to  the  bureau  of  fine  arts. 
He  reorganized  its  admistration.  In  spite  of  his  political 
occupations  he  presided  at  the  meeting  of  the  committee 
charged  with  the  question  of  the  transportation  to  the  Tuil- 
eries  of  the  National  Library,  and  the  union  at  the  Louvre 
of  all  the  museums  then  widely  dispersed.  His  democrat- 
izing tendency  was  felt  even  in  this  field;  he  granted  to  the 
artists  themselves  the  election  of  the  hanging  committee  for 
the  annual  exhibition.^ 

Above  all  Ledru  interested  himself  in  the  theatres.  He 
was  charged  with  wasting  much  of  his  time  in  them.*     On 

'  Debats,  March  25,  26;  Garnier-Pagts  8:80. 

-Monitcur  for  1848,  pp.  534,  <562,  683.  Ami  du  Peuplc,  March  36; 
Debats,  Pettple  Constituant,  March  3.  For  a  detailed  consideration  of 
philanthropy  under  the  second  republic,  see  Dreyfus. 

'Blanc  1:286;  Stern  2:347-8;  Garnier-Pages  8:85;  Reforme,  March 
23 ;  Moniteur  for  18.18,  pp.  503,  524,  777.  Houssaye  2 :  347  declares : 
"  We  artists  did  not  despair  of  art  in  France  with  Lamartinc,  T.edru- 
RoUin,  Sand,  and  Arago.  .  .  .  Lcdru-RoIIin  loves  art  and  buys  pictures." 

*  He  was  accused  of  being  the  lover  of  Judith  of  the  Palais  Royal 
and  of  the  celebrated  Rachel.  The  accusations  had  no  foundation. 
Rachel  visited  him  twice  at  the  ministry  to  consult  with  him  on  her 
project  of  arousing  enthusiasm  for  the  republic  by  reciting  the  Marseil- 
laise In  the  provinces  and  also  to  give  him  pointers  on  elocution. — Reg- 
nault  T58-9;  Rri'ril,  November  5,  1868;  Ronde  i:  104. 


72    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [226 

April  2.  Caussidiere,  Ledru  and  a  priest  spoke  at  the  plant- 
ing of  a  liberty  tree  near  the  Opera.  The  minister  of  the 
interior  aroused  enthusiasm  by  a  warm  speech  in  which  he 
enumerated  the  titles  to  glory  of  the  Opera  and  recalled  the 
great  effects  produced  by  singers  and  by  masterpieces.' 

The  most  important  work  of  Ledru  in  the  dramatic  field 
was  the  production  of  several  free  performances.  He  first 
obtained  the  consent  of  the  provisional  government  -  and  on 
March  24  signed  a  decree  announcing  them : 

Whereas  the  state  owes  it  to  the  people  ...  to  encourage  their 
participation  in  the  moral  pleasures  that  elevate  the  soul  .  .  . 
the  government  commissioner  of  theatres  is  authorized  to  give 
free  national  representations.  .  .  .  The  tickets  shall  be  sent  in 
equal  parts  to  the  city  hall  and  to  the  prefecture  of  police  to 
be  distributed  in  the  factories,  clubs,  and  schools  to  the  poorest 
citizens ;  the  tickets  shall  be  drawn  by  lot.^ 

On  April  6  occurred  the  first  of  these  free  performances. 
It  included  Corneille's  Les  Horaces,  Moliere's  Malade  im~ 
aginaire,  a  prologue  by  George  Sand  called  Le  Roi  attend, 
the  singing  of  the  Chant  du  Depart,  and  the  recitation  by 
Rachel  of  the  Marseillaise.*  The  next  day  there  was  a  free 
performance  at  the  Opera,  and  on  April  9  Auber's  La 
Mnette  de  Portici  and  the  ballet  from  Griseldis  were  given, 
followed  by  a  patriotic  tableau  and  the  singing  of  the  Mar- 
seillaise. Ledru-Rollin  was  present  on  all  three  occasions, 
accompanied  by  various  members  of  the  government;  to 
show  their  democratic  spirit  they  sat  in  the  orchestra  and 
not  in  a  reserved  box.^ 

^Revolution  dc  1848,  10:480-1;  Caussidiere  i:  186. 

*  Garnier- Pages  8 :  87-9. 

*  Moniteur  for  1848,  p.  682. 

*  Ibid.,  768,  780.  Got  1 :  235  calls  Le  Roi  attend  "  an  appropriate  pro- 
logue which  Ledru-Rollin  had  ordered  of  George  Sand  as  a  simple 
Bulletin  of  the  Republic." 

'Gamier-Pages  8:89;  Constitutionnel,  April  12. 


CHAPTER  V 

The  Provisional  Government 

Besides  being  minister  of  the  interior,  Ledru-RoUin  was  a 
member  of  the  provisional  government.  Council  meetings 
were  held  every  day,  but  Ledru's  multifarious  duties  kept 
him  from  coming  unless  important  matters  were  to  be  dis- 
cussed. In  ordinary  cases  the  minutes  of  the  session  were 
sent  to  him  at  his  ministry.^  When  Ledru  did  appear,  he 
took  a  prominent  part  and  talked  much.  "  Speeches  were 
the  great  arm,  the  great  force  of  the  provisional  govern- 
ment," says  Marie.  "  Through  them  the  crowd  was  ruled. 
....  But  in  the  council  itself,  they  were  an  obstacle,  I 
almost  said  a  plague.  Two  men  especially  allowed  them- 
selves to  be  carried  away  to  oratory  on  any  and  every  subject : 
Lamartine  and  Ledru-Rollin,  both  endowed  with  a  great 
and  lively  imagination,  differing  in  form  and  quality,  iden- 
tical in  result."  ^ 

The  provisional  government  contained  three  elements : 
socialists  (Blanc  and  Albert),  radicals  (Ledru  and  Flocon), 
and  moderates  (the  remaining  seven).  All  were  devoted  to 
the  republic,  but  the  minority,  that  is  the  radicals  and  social- 
ists, wished  to  encourage  the  revolutionary  spirit,  to  crush 
opposition,  and  to  shelve  the  liberal  monarchists  whose  con- 
version to  republicanism  they  distrusted,  whereas  the 
majority  desired  to  restrain  the  revolutionary  spirit,   con- 

'  Lavarenne  145-6,  who  himself  carried  the  minutes  to  Ledru  several 
times. 

*  Cherest :  Marie  144. 

227]  73 


74    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [228 

ciliate  opposition,  and  cooperate  with  those  dynastic  liberals 
who  accepted  the  republic/  The  moderates  wished  to  wait 
for  the  Constituent  Assembly  l^e fore  instituting  fundamental 
reforms;  the  socialists  wished  to  republicanize  French 
institutions  completely  before  the  legislature  met ;  the  radicals 
occupied  a  middle  ground,  anxious  for  reform,  but  desirous 
of  conciliating  the  moderates  and  of  working  harmoniously 
with  them. 

One  might  think  that  the  moderate  party  of  seven 
members  could  easily  defeat  either  other  party  or  the  two 
combined.  But  there  were  several  things  to  be  considered. 
Lamartine  (particularly  after  April  16),  Arago,  and  Cre- 
mieux  sometimes  sided  with  the  minority,  and  then  natur- 
ally they  carried  the  day.  But  more  important  was  the 
fact  that  the  council  could  not  afford  to  allow  any  member 
to  resign;  a  popular  tumult  might  result."  The  presence 
of  the  four  members  of  the  minority  restrained  the  people, 
prevented  a  successful  uprising.  The  presence  of  the 
majority  conciliated  the  bourgeoisie.  Each  element  relied 
on  powerful  groups  outside  the  government,  but  each  also 
feared  that  their  adherents  would  drag  them  further  than 
they  desired,  the  one  toward  anarchy,  the  other  toward 
reaction.^  The  radicals  found  as  aids  the  audacious  club- 
leaders  who  were  the  advocates  not  only  of  progress  and 

^  Regnault  8-13  says :  "  M.  Ledru-Rollin  believed  the  republic  com- 
promised by  too  much  weakness.  ...  His  colleagues  believed  it  com- 
promised by  too  much  audacity."  Proudhon.  Letters,  2:315  describes 
the  three  parties :  the  doctrinaires  of  the  National  who  oppose  progress, 
the  honest  and  devoted  radicals  who  do  not  understand  the  century  and 
too  frequently  look  back  to  1793,  and  the  socialists  who  have  false  ideas 
as  to  reforms.  See  also  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  i :  224,  278,  321,  330. 
testimony  of  Arago.  Dupont.  Marrast,  and  Pagnerre. 

*  Goudchaux  declared  that  he  alone  would  have  been  glad  of  the 
resignation  of  Ledru  and  Blanc— Quentin-Bauchart  Report  i :  289. 

'  See  Regnault  15. 


229]  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT  75 

energetic  action  but  also  of  anarchy  and  disorder.  To  un- 
chain these  tumultuous  elements  would  be  to  provoke  a 
movement  of  which  Ledru  and  his  friends  might  no  longer 
be  masters,  which  might  ruin  the  republic  through  its  ex- 
cesses. The  moderates  were  supported  by  the  business  and 
financial  interests  of  the  country,  the  former  supporters  of 
the  monarchy,  and  they  rightly  feared  that  a  break  with  the 
radicals  would  deliver  them  into  the  hands  of  these  reac- 
tionary forces. 

The  relations  of  the  radicals  and  socialists  with  each 
other  must  be  noted.  Sometimes  they  were  united,  some- 
times separated.^  Ledru-RoUin  never  shared  the  socialist 
principles  of  Louis  Blanc.  Throughout  the  second  re- 
public he  remained  merely  a  social  reformer,  what  the 
French  would  call  today  a  radical-socialist.  Communism 
was  utterly  repugnant  to  him."  He  always  declared  against 
the  idealistic  theories  and  Utopian  schemes  of  Fourier  and 
St.  Simon,  of  Cabet  and  Leroux,  but  he  was  always  in- 
terested in  practicable  social  reforms.  He  believed  that  the 
social  system  needed  renovation,  but  he  advocated  no 
specific  panacea  to  make  it  perfect ;  he  believed  in  gradual 
evolution  by  pacific  means.  Later  we  shall  find  Ledru  call- 
ing himself  a  socialist  and  Mathieu  de  la  Drome  declaring 
that  Ledru  had  always  been  one,  but  really  there  was  no 
change  in  his  ideas ;  in  order  to  unite  with  the  socialist  party 
Ledru  was  willing  to  call  socialistic  those  ideas  which  he 
had  always  held,  the  same  ones  he  had  formally  considered 
non-socialistic."  Thus  there  were  certain  similarities  not  of 
doctrine,  but  of  practice  between  L^dru  and  Louis  Blanc. 

'  See  Arago  in  Qucntin-Bauchart  Report  i  :  225. 

*  See  Delvau  448;  Cabet  36. 

'  Regnault  116  declares  that  I^dru  who  wor.sliii)ped  the  conz'ention- 
nels.  was  irritated  at  meeting  a  coinph'cation  that  they  did  not  know, 
although  he  was  not  appalled  by  the  audacity  of  the  socialist  schemes. 


76    LEDKU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [230 

The  reforms  that  the  latter  desired  were  far  more  profound, 
but  Ledru  went  far  beyond  his  moderate  antagonists.  Con- 
sequently the  place  of  the  two  socialists  was  usually  beside 
the  radicals  and  they  in  return  usually  received  the  support 
of  Ledru  and  Flocon/ 

The  leader  of  the  socialist  group,  Louis  Blanc,  although 
still  a  young  man,  being  only  thirty-six,  had  already  made 
a  name  for  himself.  His  Organisation  dii  Travail  had  set 
forth  in  a  brilliant  manner  the  faults  of  the  competitive 
system.  To  replace  this  system  the  young  author  advocated 
cooperation.  In  each  trade  the  workingmen  were  to  unite 
and  form  companies,  financed  at  the  outset  by  the  govern- 
ment, which  would  ultimately  drive  out  the  capitalistic  con- 
cerns and  bring  the  artisans  into  their  own.  Equality  of 
wages  ^  and  election  of  directing  officials  were  important 
items  of  his  program.  Confident  that  the  adoption  of  his 
ideas  would  bring  about  a  millennium,  he  tried  to  impose 
them  on  the  government,  but  never  with  success.  A  far 
more  ardent  revolutionary  than  Ledru-Rollin,  he  was  willing 
to  break  with  the  moderates  (especially  on  April  16),  but 
he  realized  that  alone  he  had  not  sufficient  backing,  that  a 
change  in  the  government  could  be  successful  only  if  Ledru- 
Rollin  joined  forces  with  him.  Advanced  as  he  v^as,  he 
was  not  an  exponent  of  terrorism;  he  hoped  to  gain  over 
the  bourgeoisie  by  argument,  not  by  the  guillotine.  Dog- 
matic, ultra-revolutionary,  he  was  at  the  same  time  loyal, 
generous,  kind-hearted,  sincere. 

In  the  provisional  government  Blanc  was  steadily  sup- 
ported by  Albert,  workingman.  The  latter  had  no  quali- 
fication whatever  for  his  place  in  the  government  except 
the  epithet  of  workingman,  without  which  his  name  never 

'Sec  Regnault  117-8. 

*  In  some  of  the  editions  of  his  book,  pay  according  to  needs,  that  is, 
a  salary  proportionate  to  the  size  of  the  wage-earner's  family. 


231]  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT  yy 

appeared.  The  proletariat  was  delighted  to  have  one  of 
its  members  in  the  government  and  that  purpose  Albert 
served.  He  had  been  one  of  the  secondary  leaders  in  the 
secret  societies  and  to  that  fact,  but  more  to  chance,  he 
owed  his  place  on  the  council.  Honest  and  sincere  he  was, 
but  he  never  displayed  the  slightest  sign  of  originality  or 
ability.  He  followed  Louis  Blanc  blindly,  always  acquiesc- 
ing in  his  leader's  assertions. 

Ledru  received  the  steady  support  of  Flocon.  The  latter 
had  succeeded  Godefroy  Cavaignac  as  editor  of  the  Re- 
form e,  and  for  years  had  with  Ledru-Rollin  guided  the 
radical  republicans.  An  independent  thinker,  at  times  he 
seemed  more  moderate,  at  times  more  advanced  than  his  col- 
league. He  was  less  easily  swayed  by  his  associates  than 
was  Ledru,  but  he  had  not  the  other's  ability  to  sway  his 
audience.  To  his  advice  and  counsel  more  than  to  that  of 
anyone  else  Ledru  turned  in  times  of  unrest. 

Dupont  de  I'Eure,  the  president  of  the  provisional  gov- 
ernment, was  eighty-one  years  old;  he  was  known  as  the 
patriarch  of  republicanism.  Since  1798  he  had  served  in 
the  legislatures  of  France  and  had  constantly  advocated 
liberal  measures.  He  was  now  too  feeble  to  take  on  active 
part  in  the  government,  but  he  threw  the  full  weight  of  his 
authority  against  all  radical  innovations.  Always  kindly, 
he  was  ever  anxious  to  maintain  harmony  in  the  council. 
Respected  throughout  France  by  all  parties,  he  was  an  ideal 
figure  to  place  at  the  head  of  the  provisional  government. 

Marie  was  the  legal  counsel  for  the  National.  A  con- 
sistent advocate  of  republicanism,  his  tendencies  were  rather 
conservative.  A  man  of  keen  intellect,  this  hard  worker 
had  the  steely  coldness  of  the  legalist. 

Holding  the  same  opinions,  Armand  Marrast  was  a  dis- 
tinct contrast  in  character.  A  hot-headed  Gascon,  he  was 
continually    quarreling    with    the    radicals.      Editor    of    the 


78    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [232 

National,  he  had  combined  a  love  for  the  repubHc  and  a 
steady  HberaHsm  with  a  fear  of  extreme  measures  and  a  dis- 
Hke  of  ultra-revolutionists. 

Louis-Antoine  Garnier- Pages,  known  as  "  the  younger," 
owed  his  position  more  to  the  reputation  of  his  deceased  elder 
brother  than  to  his  own  qualities.  A  lawyer,  a  supporter  of 
the  National,  an  old-line  republican,  he  brought  to  the  gov- 
ernment a  capacity  for  hard  labor,  courage  in  times  of 
crisis,  and  considerable  financial  ability.  Holding  the  same 
opinions  as  Marie  and  Marrast  he  was  far  more  ready  than 
were  they  to  reconcile  his  view-point  w^ith  that  of  the  radicals 
and  far  more  willing  to  recognize  the  ability  and  usefulness 
of  Ledru-Rollin. 

Frangois  Arago,  another  member  of  the  provisional  gov- 
ernment, was  probably  the  greatest  French  scientist  of  the 
day,  but  since  1830  he  had  devoted  much  of  his  time  to 
political  matters.  He  had  formerly  been  a  radical  repub- 
lican and  had  been  connected  wnth  the  Reforme,  but  he  was 
not  so  extreme  as  Ledru-Rollin  and  had  latterly  cooperated 
in  the  Chamber  wath  the  moderates.  In  Paris,  however,  he 
was  still  frequently  considered  as  an  advanced  republican, 
but  the  politicians  realized  his  conservatism,  and  when  the 
executive  commission  w^as  formed  later,  he  received  the 
largest  number  of  votes.  Brave  and  loyal,  quick  to  anger, 
easily  influenced  by  his  environment,  indefatigable  in  labor, 
he  was  an  able  assistant,  but  he  lacked  the  moral  strength  to 
be  a  leader  in  a  time  of  crisis. 

Cremieux  was  the  only  member  of  the  government  who 
was  undoubtedly  a  new  republican.  He  had  long  been  a 
prominent  member  of  the  dynastic  left  but  hardly  one  of  us 
leaders.  His  place  on  the  council  he  owed  to  the  fact  that 
he  alone  of  the  supporters  of  the  July  monarchy  had  advo- 
cated a  provisional  government  on  February  24.  His  ideas 
were  fluid  rather  than  fixed.     He  had  been  a  sincere  con- 


233]  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT  yg 

stitutional  monarchist ;  he  suddenly  became  a  sincere  repub- 
lican. Later,  when  reaction  set  in,  it  swept  him  with  it 
at  first,  but  finally  it  went  too  far  for  him,  and  in  the  Legisla- 
tive Assembly  he  became  the  leader  of  the  moderate  re- 
publicans of  the  left.  From  his  antecedents  one  would  ex- 
pect that  he  would  be  the  least  advanced  of  the  members  of 
the  council.  Such  was  not  the  case.  He  was  not  con- 
nected by  earlier  ties  with  the  National  group  and  in  conse- 
quence frequently  sided  with  its  opponents.  The  facility 
with  which  he  absorbed  new  ideas  made  him  more  easily 
accept  the  reforms  advocated  by  Ledru-Rollin  and  Louis 
Blanc. 

Undoubtedly  the  most  prominent  member  of  the  pro- 
visional government  was  Alphonse  de  Lamartine.  He  was 
recognized  as  one  of  the  greatest  poets  of  the  day,  but  his 
ambition  was  to  shine  as  well  in  the  realm  of  politics. 
Under  the  Bourbons  he  had  l^een  a  staunch  legitimist,  but 
already  showed  some  liberal  ideas.  Under  the  July  Mon- 
archy his  evolution  was  gradual.  He  joined  no  party  in  the 
legislature  and  had  no  followers,  but  the  aid  of  his  eloquence 
was  sought  by  all.  Once  in  support  of  a  Mole  cabinet,  he 
maintained  the  field  almost  alone  against  all  the  brilliant  ora- 
tors of  the  Chamber.  He  had  been  repeatedly  offered  minor 
ministries,  but  he  was  unwilling  to  abandon  his  independ- 
ent position  unless  he  could  obtain  one  of  the  chief  cabinet 
portfolios.  Exactly  when  he  l^ecame  a  republican  is  a 
mooted  question.  Some  claim  it  was  not  until  February  24, 
but  it  is  more  probable  that  before  the  revolution  he  had  ac- 
cepted the  republic  as  the  ideal  form  of  government.  His 
first  step  in  that  direction  was  the  glorification  of  the  first 
republic  in  Les  Girondins.  When  the  decisive  moment 
came  on  February  24,  when  he  arose  in  the  legislature  and 
his  words  would  probably  wreck  the  monarchy  or  give  it  a 
chance,  he  declared  for  a  provisional  government. 


8o    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [234 

He  was  the  person  who  represented  the  provisional  gov- 
ernment at  all  crises;  time  after  time  his  was  the  voice  that 
quelled  the  mob  by  its  miraculous  eloquence  and  made  it 
change  from  hisses  to  acclamations.  In  the  council  he  was 
at  first  the  leader  of  the  moderates;  he  and  Ledru-Rollin 
were  considered  by  France  as  the  protagonists  of  the  two 
opposing  tendencies.  But  he  was  the  mildest  of  the 
majority  and,  though  their  leader,  constantly  moderated 
their  conservatism.  Above  all,  relying  on  his  eloquence,  he 
was  the  advocate  of  harmony.  His  powers  of  persuasion 
he  tried  on  the  mob,  on  the  extremist  leaders  (Blanqui, 
Sobrier,  for  instance),  and  on  Ledru-Rollin.  After  April 
16  we  shall  see  a  change  in  Lamartine's  attitude.  He  re- 
alized more  clearly  the  power  of  the  extremists  and  believed 
that  the  republic  could  sail  on  its  course  successfully  only 
by  tacking  somewhat  in  their  direction.  With  this  purpose 
he  tried  hard  to  conciliate  the  radical  leader;  Ledru-Rollin, 
delighted  to  find  a  supporter  in  the  majority,  willingly 
abandoned  half  his  desires,  restrained  his  ardour,  and  w^hole- 
heartedly  joined  forces  with  Lamartine. 

Such  were  the  members  of  the  provisional  government. 
As  assistants  they  had  chosen  principally  moderates.  The 
secretary  of  the  council,  Pagnerre,  and  the  minister  of 
finances,  Goudchaux,  both  connected  with  the  National,  were 
bitter  opponents  of  the  radicals.  Carnot,  minister  of 
education,  resembled  Garnier-Pages  in  his  attitude.  Beth- 
mont  of  the  department  of  commerce  and  agriculture,  a 
moderate,  mixed  little  in  the  squabbles.  General  Subervie, 
for  a  brief  period  minister  of  war,  seems  to  have  held 
opinions  similar  to  Ledru's,  as  is  show^^  by  the  following 
letter  written  to  the  minister  of  the  interior  on  March  19: 
"  My  dear  colleague,  your  enemies  are  also  mine.  They 
torment  you,  they  torment  me,  because  they  know  that  our 
opinions  are  the  same.     I  must  talk  with  vou.     I  shall  come 


235]  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT  8 1 

to  see  you  tomorrow  morning.  Yours  sincerely,  General 
Subervie."  ^  The  general  had  just  been  removed  from  his 
office  through  the  influence  of  Marrast.  This  had  been  done 
in  the  absence  of  Ledru,  Flocon,  Cremieux,  and  Lamartine, 
and  only  the  insistance  of  Subervie  kept  them  from  pro- 
testing. Cremieux  maintained  that,  to  prove  the  removal 
was  no  slight,  the  ex-minister  should  be  appointed  chancellor 
of  the  legion  or  honour.     The  council  agreed.^ 

Arago  accepted  the  ministry  of  war  ad  interim.  The  per- 
manent appointee  was  to  be  Cavaignac,  who  had  already 
})een  created  lieutenant-general  and  Governor  of  Algeria. 
The  latter  refused  in  a  letter  in  which  he  almost  questioned 
the  authority  of  the  provisional  government.  Ledru,  to- 
gether with  Arago,  Blanc,  and  Marrast,  demanded  his  re- 
call, 1>ut  it  was  finally  decided  to  leave  him  in  his  African 
command  and  merely  to  send  a  letter  of  reprimand.^  Ledru 
in  1850  gave  what  is  probably  an  inexact  account : 

Cavaignac  aspired  to  power  .  .  .  since  February,  for  from 
Africa  ...  he  was  meditating  the  overthrow  of  those  who 
promoted  him  in  memory  of  his  brother's  services.  The  letter 
in  which  he  refused  the  ministry  of  war  .  .  .  almost  put  in 
question  the  legitimacy  of  the  government.  .  .  .  This  refusal, 
which  took  the  form  of  an  insolent  protest  against  the  revolu- 
tion, should  have  caused  his  dismissal.  This  I  demanded,  and 
the  government  was  on  the  point  of  accepting  it,  but  my  efforts 
were  neutralized  by  MM.  Flocon  and  I>ouis   Blanc* 

The  family  of  Cavaignac  was  on  good  terms  with  the 
minister  of  the  interior.  The  commissioner  of  the  Drome 
had  been  named  at  the  suggestion  of  Mme.  Cavaignac."^     On 

'  LR  Papers  i  :  213.     For  original  text,  see  appendix. 
'  Sarrans  307-8. 

*  Gamier- Pages  7:  320;  Rcgnault  325-r);  Sarrans  i  :  309. 

*  Voix  du  Proscrit  2 :  45. 

'Archives  Nationales,  F,  iB — II,  60  (12). 


82    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [236 

March  7  General  Jacques  Cavaignac  had  written  Ledru  a 
letter:  ".  .  .  .  You  assure  me  of  the  appointment  of  my 
son  to  the  ministry,  of  which  everyone  was  speaking  yester- 
day. Recalling  our  conversation,  I  would  say  that  I  now 
believe  that  my  son  would  refuse.  To  appoint  him  minister 
would  be  merely  to  remove  him  from  the  governorship. 
You  forbid  me  to  thank  you,  but  you  cannot  forbid  me  to 
be  grateful.  I  assure  you,  no  one  thinks  more  than  I  do 
of  the  burden  which  weighs  on  you,  or  is  more  reassured 
in  seeing  you  carry  it.' '  ^ 

There  was  much  dissension  within  the  ranks  of  the  pro- 
visional government,  but  this  has  been  greatly  exaggerated. 
That  there  was  constant  friction  is  unquestionable,  but  each 
difference  of  opinion  was  amicably  settled.  Both  sides  fre- 
quently threatened  to  resign,  but  no  one  carried  out  this 
threat.  Again  and  again  Louis  Blanc  and  Ledru-Rollin, 
after  being  defeated  in  the  council,  came  before  the  crowd 
and  declared  their  adhesion  to  the  government  decision. - 

Ledru  had  some  trouble  with  Arago  and  with  Cremieux 
as  to  the  authority  of  the  commissioners  over  the  army 
officers  and  the  judges.  He  had  slight  disputes  with  other 
members,  but  only  with  Armand  Marrast  did  the  dissension 
become  bitter.  The  latter  had  succeeded  Garnier-Pages  as 
mayor  of  Paris  and  as  such  should  have  been  subordinate  to 
the  minister  of  the  interior,  but  his  pride  would  not  allow 
him  to  receive  orders  from  a  fellow-member  of  the  gov- 
ernment. The  position  was  anomalous.  A  big  man  would 
have  realized  that  the  mayor  must  take  orders  from  the 
minister;  a  tactful  minister  would  have  induced  the  mayor 

'  LR  Papers  i :  201.  See  appendix  for  original  document.  This  letter 
would  indicate  that  Eugene  Cavaignac  was  the  son  of  Jacques,  not  of 
the  latter's  brother,  the  convcntionnel,  Jean-Baptiste. 

*  Arago  and  Dupont  belittle  the  dissensions ;  Garnier-Pages  claims 
that  outside  influences  envenomed  the  struggle.  —  Quentin-Bauchart  Re- 
port 1 :  224,  276,  284. 


237]  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT  83 

to  take  a  subordinate  position.  But  both  men  had 
disliked  each  other  long  before  the  revolution  of  February, 
and  the  smouldering  irritation  broke  out  at  the  first  op- 
portunity. So  far  did  they  go  in  mistrust  of  each  other 
that  they  had  police  agents  to  watch  each  other's  action.^ 
What  caused  the  most  irritation  was  the  police  depart- 
ment. Caussidiere  had  seized  the  prefecture  of  police  on 
February  24,  and  the  provisional  government  had  given  a 
silent  consent  but  had  not  regularly  appointed  him  or  rati- 
fied his  position.  The  desire  of  the  council  was  to  give  the 
place  to  Recurt,  but  Caussidiere  refused  to  surrender  his 
power  and  was  given  a  provisional  appointment."  On  March 
2  trouble  broke  out.  Garnier- Pages,  who  was  still  mayor 
of  Paris,  declared  that  he  was  the  equal  of  the  minister  of 
the  interior  and  would  hold  office  only  from  the  council. 
Ledru-Rollin  replied  with  precedents.  Garnier-Pages  re- 
torted that  as  a  member  of  the  government  Ledru-Rollin 
would  be  permitted  to  intervene  in  the  affairs  of  the 
mayoralty.  An  agreement  was  reached  by  which  the  mayor 
was  declared  independent  of  the  minister  but  was  to  inform 
him  of  all  matters  of  police.  Disagreements  should  be  re- 
ferred to  the  entire  council.^  After  this  quarrel  Garnier- 
Pages  assured  his  opponent  that  he  had  acted  in  good  faith 
and  merely  desired  to  have  their  spheres  clearly  distin- 
guished. "If  your  intention  is  harmony,"  replied  Ledru, 
"  I  cannot  but  applaud  and  approve  it."  Again  as  on 
February  24  the  minister  and  the  mayor  shook  hands.''     On 

'  Stern  2:  154-5.     The  Ducos  commission  blamed  flic  expenditure  for 
this  purpose. — Monitcur  for  1849,  p.  IS57. 

RcRuault  182.  Bouton  5  claims:  "It  was  a  question  of  replacing 
not  only  Caussidiere  by  Recurt  but  I^dru-Rollin  by  Cormenin  as  min- 
ister of  the  interior.  .  .  .  Ledru-Rollin  was  to  remain  in  the  provisional 
government."  At  the  trial  of  Barbes,  Ledru  declared :  "  The  police  of 
Caussidiere  was  badly  organized ;  it  was  composed  of  patriots  who 
acted  voluntarily." — Monitcur  for  184Q,  p.  947. 

*  Monitcur  for  184S.  p.  529.  *  Garnier-Pages  6:226. 


84    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [238 

March  6  Caussidiere  appeared  before  the  council;  he  made 
a  good  impression,  but  no  resokition  was  taken.^ 

On  March  10,  the  day  after  Marrast  became  mayor, 
Ledru  demanded  that  the  prefecture  of  poHce  should  1>e  an 
adjunct  of  the  ministry  of  the  interior.  He  emphasized  the 
need  of  having  the  police  of  the  provinces  and  that  of  the 
capital  under  the  same  government  department.  Garnier- 
Pages  insisted  on  the  unity  of  the  prefectures  of  police  and 
of  the  Seine.  A  violent  discussion  arose  and  2^Iarrast 
yielded.  "  I  am  not  anxious  to  have  daily  work  with  M. 
Caussidiere,"  he  told  his  predecessor."  '  On  March  17 
Caussidiere  received  his  definite  appointment." 

Friction  between  the  mayor  of  Paris  and  the  minister  of 
the  interior  continued.  Ledru  obtained  the  consent  of  the 
government  to  the  creation  of  a  special  additional  force  of 
police.  Caussidiere  immediately  started  enrolling  men,  but 
he  was  informed  that  Marrast  was  doing  likewise.  The 
latter  stopped  only  when  the  prefect  threatened  to  arrest 
anyone  wearing  the  uniform  of  the  police  without  his 
authorisation.  When  the  affair  was  explained  to  the  mayor 
by  Ledru-Rollin,  Marrast  pleaded  ignorance  and  said  that 
he  had  believed  the  force  was  under  his  jurisdiction.*  To 
put  an  end  to  these  discussions  a  new  committee  composed 
of  Marie,  Flocon,  and  Bethmont  was  charged  on  April  3 
with  revising  and  limiting  the  respective  attributes  of  the 
two  authorities.^ 

One  of  Ledru's  duties  was  to  draw  up  police  reports  for 
the  council.  These  reports  told  of  the  state  of  Paris  and 
the  preparations  for  uprisings.     "  Every  day  I  read  to  the 

'  Ibid.,  6 :  345-6. 

^  Ibid.,  2:345-6;  Blanc  1:295;  Moniteur  for  1848.  p.  601. 

*  Moniteur  for  1848,  pp.  636,  643. 

*  Caussidiere  i :  267-8. 

*  Garnier-Pages  7 :  27. 


239]  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT  85 

government,"  said  Ledru  a  year  later,  "  the  report  of  the 
police,  and  each  member,  particularly  citizen  Marie,  took 
note."  ^  It  was  Caussidiere,  the  prefect  of  police,  who  in 
person  brought  the  information  to  Ledru.^ 

Caussidiere  is  the  most  picturesque  figure  thrown  up  by 
the  revolution  of  1848.  Large  and  imposing  in  stature,  he 
dressed  like  a  brigand  and  bragged  like  a  bully.  He  seemed 
like  a  conspirator  in  a  comic  opera.  What  his  relations 
with  Ledru  were  is  not  at  all  clear.  Many  writers  insist 
that  in  spite  of  his  declared  devotion  to  the  minister, 
he  was  merely  using  his  superior  in  order  to  climb 
into  power  over  him.^  It  is  certain  that  Caussidiere 
had  considerable  influence  over  the  minister,  but  it  is  doubt- 
ful whether  he  ever  wished  to  overthrow  him  or  even  in- 
trigued with  him  to  overthrow  the  moderates.  Caussidiere 
was  a  born  conspirator  and  probably  was  aware  of,  if  he  did 
not  tacitly  encourage,  many  of  the  attempts  to  overthrow 
the  provisional  government.  At  times  of  crisis  he  main- 
tained a  neutral  position  so  that  he  seemed  ready  to  join 
the  uprising  if  it  should  prove  successful  or  to  remain  true 
to  the  government  if  it  should  win  the  day.  But  it  must  be 
rememl)ered  to  his  credit  that  in  these  troublesome  times  he 
actually  kept  Paris  safe. 

'  Barbes  trial,  Monitcur  for  1849,  p.  947.  Arago  claims  that  Ledru 
was  badly  informed  and  that  his  reports  were  biased  in  favor  of  the 
clubs. — Ibid.,  932. 

*  Caussidiere  2:2-3.  One  time  when  Caussidiere  desired  the  creation 
of  a  special  force,  he  proposed  as  an  inducement  that  it  should  wear 
the  workingmen's  garb.  "  But,"  cried  Ledru,  "  I  cannot  accept  these 
distinctions.     To  be  with  the  people,  must  one  be  clad  in  a  blouse?" 

•  Lamartine  2:89;  73arrot  2:119;  Rojfnauit  262-4.  Favre  in  Quentin- 
T'auchart  Report  1:279  says:  "Ledru-Roilin  considered  Caussidiere  as 
a  prefect  of  police  impossible  in  ordinary  times  but  necessary  in  times 
of  revolution.  He  flattered  himself  that  he  dominated  him,  whereas 
Ciussidiere  on  his  side  said:  'Oh,  Lcdru-RoUin!  I  shall  kick  him  out 
when  I  wish.'  "  Caussidiere,  of  course,  denied  this  allegation. — Speeches 
in  National  Assembly,  August  25,  1848,  .Monitcur  for  i8.fS,  p.  2172. 


CHAPTER  VI 

Finances  and  Foreign  Affairs 

When  the  new  government  came  into  power,  the  finances 
were  in  a  deplorable  condition.  Goudchaux,  the  first 
minister  of  the  treasury,  handed  in  his  resignation  on  March 
5  in  spite  of  the  unanimous  regret  of  the  provisional  govern- 
ment; he  declared  that  he  could  not  take  charge  of  the 
finances  at  a  time  when  anarchic  doctrines  were  openly 
preached.  Garnier-Pages  bravely  took  up  the  burden. 
Conditions  were  becoming  worse  and  worse.  The  bour- 
geoisie took  fright  and  stocks  fell  off.  The  circular  issued  by 
Ledru-Rollin  on  March  12  frightened  the  bankers  and 
there  was  a  panic  on  the  stock  exchange.  Duclerc,  under- 
secretary of  finances,  even  went  so  far  as  to  assert  in  the 
Assembly  a  year  later  that  Ledru  was  responsible  for  the 
need  of  increasing  the  taxes  on  account  of  his  incendiary 
propaganda.^     Ledru  replied : 

If  I  had  expected  this  discussion,  I  should  have  brought  here 
the  long  list  of  financial  houses  which  became  bankrupt  be- 
tween February  24  and  March  12,  and  you  would  see  by  the 
dates  that  it  was  not  the  circular  that  brought  about  so 
universal  and  so  profound  a  disturbance.  I  even  declare  that 
the  heads  of  several  of  the  chief  banks  came  to  the  ministry'' 
of  the  interior  a  few  days  after  the  revolution  of  February. 
long  before  March  12,  to  tell  me  that  their  condition  was  des- 
perate, that  they  could  no  longer  satisfy  their  engagements. 

1  Speech  of  April  12,  1849.  Moniteur  for  1840,  p.  1355. 
86  [240 


241  ]  FINANCES  AND  FOREIGN  AFFAIRS  8/ 

Remember  that  the  distress  of  most  of  these  estabhshments 
antedated  even  February.^ 

Ledru's  revolutionary  activities  probably  aggravated  the  dis- 
tress, but  it  is  absurd  to  say  that  they  caused  it. 

Various  methods  of  alleviating  the  distress  were  sug- 
gested. Ledru-Rollin  favored  the  issue  of  paper  money 
since  the  time  was  unpropitious  for  the  immediate  establish- 
ment of  a  progressive  tax  on  capital.  Some  time  later  he 
told  the  Assembly: 

Like  all  the  government  I  wished  that  the  republic  should 
establish  a  proportional  and  progressive  tax  on  all  property, 
real  as  well  as  personal.  That  was  the  thought,  the  principle 
of  the  provisional  government  ....  but  times  were  not  ripe 
for  this  new  tax;  we  could  only  discuss  the  principle  and  we 
established  another  tax  ....  I  proposed  two  things;  first, 
banknotes  guaranteed  by  state  property.  It  was  said :  the 
state  property  is  not  worth  as  much  as  is  thought  but  that  is 
of  little  importance ;  that  property  was  always  worth  as  much 
as  the  bullion  in  the  cellars  of  the  Bank  of  France,  and  I 
wished  it  to  be  issued  only  in  reasonable  proportion  to  the 
real  property  of  the  state.  I  also  asked  that  bonds  be  issued 
which  should  have  a  forced  currency  equal  to  half  the  taxes. 
It  was  an  excellent  and  fruitful  measure  which  would  im- 
mediately have  created  an  immense  resource  to  subsidize 
capital  and  laljor,  a  measure  so  little  revolutionary  that  it  had 
been  proposed  by  M.  Lafitte  in  1831.- 

Before  the  committee  of  investigation  Ledru  declared : 
"  I  believed  that  if  prompt  measures  were  not  taken,  the 

*  Discours  politiques  2:  272. 

*  Speech  of  April  12,  1849,  Discours  politiques  2:278-9.  Duclcrc  re- 
plied' that  Lcdru  estimated  the  state  property  at  four  billions  whereas 
the  state  had  only  thirteen  hundred  millions,  and  that  it  would  have 
been  dangerous  to  raise  a  billion  on  this  depreciating  security. — Moniteur 
for  184^,  p.  1355. 


88    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [242 

Struggle  would  commence;  credit  had  to  l>e  revived,  also 
work  and  industry.  I  held  that  opinion  in  the  provisional 
government  in  which  I  was  in  a  minority.  M.  Garnier- 
Pages  was  an  obstacle;  he  believed  the  finances  of  the  gov- 
ernment should  be  administered  as  in  ordinary  times."  Ledru 
continued  with  details,  citing  the  measures  of  the  first  re- 
public, and  insisting  that  paper  money  was  the  sole  means 
of  saving  the  finances  of  France.^ 

The  government  preferred  the  scheme  of  their  minister  of 
finance.  Garnier-Pages  proposed  the  tax  of  forty-five  cen- 
times which  was  destined  to  arouse  so  much  hostile  com- 
ment. For  every  franc  of  direct  taxes,  the  citizens  were 
to  pay  this  year  an  additional  forty-five  centimes.  As  the 
tax  was  only  on  real  property,  the  farmers  were  particularly 
hard  hit.  As  the  regular  tax  lists  were  used,  those  com- 
munities that  expended  money  on  local  improvements  had 
to  pay  more  than  their  share.  Above  all  the  tax  weighed 
down  the  poorer  agriculturists.  The  last  consideration 
especially  impressed  Ledru-Rollin.  He  told  the  Assembly 
a  year  later : 

I  proposed  one  franc  fift}'  on  the  rich,  and  that  idea  of 
exempting  the  poor  was  not  a  passing  thought  with  me;  I 
constantly  and  perseveringly  returned  to  it.  Every  day  I  read 
to  the  government  reports  of  the  commissioners  saying:  the 
forty-five  centimes  will  ruin  the  republic  ....  I  proposed  it 
should  no  longer  be  left  to  a  tax-collector  to  decide  what 
small  proprietors  should  be  exempted  from  the  tax.  ( Gamier- 
Pages:  It  was  I  who  demanded  it.)  We  demanded  it  together, 
if  you  wish,  but  as  a  result  of  the  reports  that  I  read  daily. 
Two  weeks  later  we  decided  that  a  circular  with  the  force  of 
law  should  exempt  all  overburdened  or  poor  proprietors,  all 
the  small  farmers.  Nor  is  this  all.  I  considered  the  tax  of 
forty  five  centimes  so  fatal  to  the  republic  that  several  times 

*  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  i :  313. 


243]  FINANCES  AND  FOREIGN  AFFAIRS  89 

I  asked  that  other  financial  means  be  substituted  for  it.  .  .  . 
Let  me  be  blamed  for  advocating  paper  money,  but  not  for  the 
tax  of  forty-five  centimes.^ 

Though  preferring  other  measures.  Ledru  had  acquiesced  in 
the  tax  of  forty-five  centitnes.  He  desired  that  a  larger 
amount  be  asked,  but  imposed  only  on  the  rich;  Garnier- 
Pages  agreed  to  an  informal  exemption  of  the  poor.  The 
minister  of  the  interior  rightly  dreaded  the  effects  of  the 
tax  of  forty-five  centimes,  but  he  loyally  defended  his 
colleague  of  the  treasury.  Tw^o  Bulletins  of  the  Republic, 
the  seventh  and  fourteenth,  were  devoted  to  a  defense  of 
Garnier-Pages's  financial  policy. 

Conservatives  accused  the  provisional  government,  and 
particularly  Ledru-Rollin,  of  favoring  state  bankrupcy. 
This  is  absolutely  false.  Dupont  de  I'Eure,  Goudchaux, 
Duclerc  deny  the  charge  and  exonerate  the  minister  of  the 
interior.^  In  fact  no  one  suggested  actual  bankruptcy,  but 
a  suspension  of  payments  was  proposed,  not  by  the  members 
of  the  government,  but  by  two  conservative  bankers.  One 
was  the  Bonapartist  Fould.  ^  The  other  was  the  Orleanist 
Delamarre.  The  latter,  according  to  Ledru,  also  suggested 
that  the  government  impose  a  forced  loan  and  offered  to 
assist  in  assessing  the  quotas  on  the  leading  bankers.  The 
minister  indignantly  rejected  the  offer.*     Delamarre  denied 

'Speech  of  April  12,  1849,  in  Discours  politiqucs  2:275-6.  He  adds: 
"  Citizens,  a  certain  member  tires  us  with  his  cries  of  '  What  is  a  poor 
man?'  ...  A  poor  man  is  one  who  can  pay  only  a  small  tax.  It  is  not 
a  question  of  class-distinctions,  but  of  shares  in  the  tax-schedule."  Cf. 
Gamier-Pages  7:58;  Antony  160 1  ;  Delvau  413-417;  Blanc  1:271.  For 
a  detailed  financial  article  by  Ledru,  sec  a  letter  in  the  1850  Almanach 
dcs  Proscrils,  30-33. 

^Monitcur  for  1849.  pp.  1355,  1479. 

^See  page  284  in  the  debate  of  April  21,  1849. 

*  Speech  of  .\pril  21,  1849,  Mon'dcur  for  iS.fcj,  p.  T480. 


go    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [244 

that  he  had  suggested  a  forced  loan  and  insisted  that  his 
scheme  was  the  creation  of  a  large  discounting  house,  the 
money  to  be  furnished  by  the  government,  the  Bank  of 
France,  and  the  leading  bankers,  that  Ledru  and  several  of 
his  colleagues  endorsed  the  project,  but  that  Gamier- Pages's 
opposition  killed  the  proposal/  Etienne  Arago  and  Delvau 
support  the  statements  of  Ledru-Rollin,"  whereas  none  of 
the  statesmen  to  whom  Delamarre  appealed  made  statements 
in  his  favor;  consequently  Ledru's  account  is  probably 
nearer  the  truth." 

The  financial  integrity  of  the  provisional  government  was 
frequently  investigated  by  its  opponents.  The  Constituent 
Assembly  appointed  two  committees  of  investigation.  The 
hostile  Ducos  completely  exonerated  of  dishonesty  every 
member  of  the  government.  He  questioned  only  the  money 
given  to  certain  delegates  of  the  clubs  and  a  few  expendi- 
tures by  certain  commissioners.*  Ducos  at  first  wished  to 
make  Ledru  personally  responsible  for  these,  but  the  com- 
mittee decided  that  that  would  l^e  unfair.^  Other  investiga- 
tions made  by  the  Legislative  Assembly  in  1849,  by  the 
court  of  accounts  in  1850,  by  the  council  of  state  and  by 
the  legislature  in  1852,  all  completely  absolved  the  pro- 
visional government  of  malversation  or  extravagance." 

In  foreign  afTairs  as  w^ell  as  in  finances  Ledru  took  his 
part,  although  here  too  his  suggestions  were  not  adopted. 
The  foreign  minister,  Lamartine,  had  announced  his  attitude 
in  a  circular  of  March  4 : 

^  Patrie,  April  23,  1849;  Debats,  Constitutionnel,  April  24. 

*  Re  for  me,  April  22,  1849;  Delvau  393-4. 

*  Antony  46  believes  Ledru's  statements,  but  it  is  not  clear  whether 
he  ever  saw  Delamarre's  defense. 

*  Ducos  Report,  Moniteur  for  1849,  p.  1557. 

*  Antony  250-7.     For  the  entire  subject,  see  this  work. 

*  Gamier- Pages  8:  368-370. 


245]  FINANCES  AND  FOREIGN  AFFAIRS  91 

France  is  a  republic.  The  French  republic  does  not  have 
to  be  recognized  in  order  to  exist.  It  is  based  alike  on  national 
and  on  natural  law.  .  .  .  The  proclamation  of  the  republic  is 
not  an  act  of  aggression  against  any  existing  form  of  gov- 
ernment  War,  therefore,  is  not  now  the  principle  of 

the  French  republic  as  it  was  the  fatal  and  glorious  necessity 
of  the  republic  of  1792.  .  .  .  The  differences  existing  between 
that  period  of  history  and  the  present  time  explain  the  necessity 
of  peace.  .  .  .  The  French  republic  will  not  declare  war 
against  any  state.  ...  It  will  accept  war  should  conditions 
incompatible  with  peace  be  offered  to  the  French  people.  .  .  . 
The  treaties  of  181 5  have  no  longer  any  lawful  existence  in 
the  eyes  of  the  French  republic ;  nevertheless  the  existing 
territorial  frontiers  are  facts  which  the  republic  admits  as  a 
basis  ....  in  her  relations  with  foreign  powers.  ...  If 
Switzerland  should  be  menaced  in  the  progressive  movement 
which  she  has  undertaken  ....  if  the  independent  states  of 
Italy  should  be  invaded,  if  limits  or  obstacles  should  be  placed 
in  the  making  of  internal  changes  ....  the  French  republic 
would  consider  itself  entitled  to  take  up  arms.  .  .  .  She  is 
determined  never  to  curtail  liberty  within  her  territory.  .  .  . 
She  proclaims  herself  ....  the  ally  of  popular  rights  and 
progress.  .  .  .  ^ 

Lamartine  thus  maintained  that  France  desired  peace, 
would  accept  the  treaties  of  181 5  as  existing  de  facto  if  not 
de  jure,  would  not  republicanize  by  the  sword,  Init  would  not 
permit  other  nations  to  prevent  internal  democratic  changes 
in  Europe,  particulariy  In  Switzerland  and  in  Italy. 

Ledru-Rollin  would  have  adopted  most  of  this  j)olicy 
gladly;  only  he  emphasized  the  mission  of  France  to  spread 
republican  ideas,  if  not  by  the  sword,  at  least  by  propaganda 
and  by  active  alliance  with  any  people  that  should  desire  to 
throw  off  the  yoke  of  their  ruler.  This  difference  between 
the  two  men  first  manifested  itself  in  connection  with  Italian 

^     *  Moniteur  for  18^8,  pp.  444-5. 


92    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [246 

relations.  When  Austria  attempted  to  repress  the  demo- 
cratic movement  in  that  peninsula,  Ledru  desired  to  inter- 
vene immediately;  Lamartine  wished  to  wait  for  the  call  of 
the  Italian  people,  and  Lamartine  had  his  way/ 

In  one  field  the  department  of  foreign  affairs  touched  the 
work  of  the  department  of  the  interior.  There  were  many 
foreign  workingmen  in  France.  As  there  was  not  enough 
work  in  the  country  for  the  native  artisans,  the  provisional 
government  decided  to  give  to  the  foreigners  free  transporta- 
tion to  their  fatherland ;  Flocon  was  authorized  to  distribute 
sixty  thousand  francs  for  this  purpose.^  Unfortunately 
many  of  these  workingmen  tried  to  revolutionize  their 
native  countries  but  the  purpose  of  the  provisional  govern- 
ment in  sending  them  home  w^as  not  that  of  spreading  pro- 
paganda. 

In  western  Germany  there  was  fear  of  an  invasion  from 
France,  and  Gagern,  a  leader  of  the  democratic  movement, 
spoke  openly  in  the  Hessian  legislature  of  the  menace  of  an 
invasion  from  German  workingmen  in  France,  and  of  the 
belligerent  speeches  of  Ledru-Rollin.  The  government  for- 
mally denied  any  hostile  intentions  in  these  speeches :  "  M. 
Ledru-Rollin  would  indeed  be  astonished  were  such  an  in- 
terpretation given  to  his  words,"  it  said.^  There  was  a 
small  and  unsuccessful  expedition  into  Baden,  headed  by 
the  poet,  Herwegh,  but  the  government  had  refused  any 
assistance,  and  Ledru  had  written  to  the  officials  at  Stras- 

'  Barrot  2:84;  Regnault  243-4;  Mazzini,  Scritfi,  8:63,  in  a  letter  to 
Cavour  in  June,  1858,  says :  "  The  tendencies  represented  by  Ledru- 
Rollin  were  not  sufficiently  seconded  by  his  colleagues,  but  I  affirm  that 
the  French  republic  wished  to  aid  in  the  emancipation  of  Italy  with  arms 
and  that  the  -Sardinian  government  did  not." 

^  Discours  poUtiques  2:63;  Garnier-Pag^s  7:275;  Ducos  report,  Moni- 
teur  for  1849,  p.  1554. 

'  Moniteur  for  1848,  pp.  744,  761. 


247]  FINANCES  AND  FOREIGN  AFFAIRS  93 

bourg  to  prevent  the  expedition/  The  government  even 
dissolved  all  meetings  of  Germans  in  the  eastern  depart- 
ments.'^ 

Some  Savoyard  workingmen  residing  in  or  near  Lyons 
made  an  abortive  expedition  against  Chambery  in  Savoy, 
but  they  were  easily  repelled  by  the  native  mountaineers.  The 
government  removed  all  the  refugees  from  the  frontier,  and 
Ledru,  Lamartine,  and  Emmanuel  Arago,  commissioner  at 
Lyons,  worked  together  to  prevent  a  second  attack.  The 
expedition  against  Chambery  was  attributed  to  the  minister 
of  the  interior,  but  there  is  no  foundation  for  the  charge.^ 

By  far  the  most  serious  of  these  invasions  of  foreign 
territory  from  France  was  the  affair  of  Risquons-tout  in 
Belgium.  Secret  societies  in  that  country  had  long  con- 
spired for  a  republic,  and  one  of  their  agents  had  approached 
Ledru-Rollin,  but  apparently  with  no  satisfactory  result.* 
The  chief  organizers  of  the  plot  in  Paris  were  two  Belgian 
refugees,  Blervacq  and  Fosse,  both  of  whom  were  sus^^ected 
of  being  agents  provocateurs.^  These  two  agitators  acted 
separately;  this  is  a  fact  that  has  not  been  sufficiently  ap- 
preciated by  historians  and  which  clears  up  most  of  the 
seemingly  contradictory  testimony.  Fosse's  group  was 
aided  by  Marrast  and  the  municipal  authorities."     From  de- 

'  Letter  of  Lamartine  in  Circourt  1:155;  Stern  3:311.  Circourt  1: 
251,  312;  2:40  charges  Ledru  with  complicity  l)ut  gives  no  proofs.  He 
also  speaks  of  trouble  over  Savoye,  charge  d'affaires  at  Frankfort  and 
a  friend  of  Ledru. — Ibid.,  i :  336. 

'  Mo  nit  cur  for  1 8  48,  p.  891. 

'Lamartine  2:167-8;  Regnault  274;  Stern  2:310;  Monitcttr  for  JS48, 
p.  795- 

*  Bertrand  i  :  356.  Bertrand  i  :  t,t,6-t^  gives  a  full  account  of  the 
connection  of  the  Risquons-tout  affair  with  Belgian  history,  but  he  gives 
little  space  to  the  French  ramifications  of  the  plot. 

*  Regnault  291. 

*  Garnier-Pages  7:287;  Dclvau  421. 


^^    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [248 

puty-maj'-or  Buchez  Fosse  received  the  money  to  pay  the 
expenses  of  those  who  should  take  part  in  the  projected  ex- 
pedition. Caussidiere  heard  of  the  preparations  for  de- 
parture at  the  last  moment.  He  sought  the  minister  of 
the  interior  to  gain  his  approval  or  disapproval  of  the  ex- 
pedition, but  Ledru  was  occupied  all  day.  The  prefect  of 
police  did  not  dare  stop  the  Belgians  on  his  own  respon- 
sibility and  sorely  against  his  will  let  the  band  enter  their 
special  train.  The  workingman  reached  Valenciennes 
safely.  Thence  they  were  sent  off  in  Belgian  trains  by  the 
commissioner  of  the  North,  Delescluze,  who  had  received 
no  orders.  The  train  did  not  stop  at  the  frontier,  and  the 
insurgents  were  surrounded  by  troops  w^hen  they  reached 
the  first  station  in  Belgium,  Quievrain.  They  were  then 
quietly  sent  to  their  homes.^  It  is  evident  that  Ledru- 
Rollin,  Caussidiere,  and  Delescluze  gave  no  surreptitious 
aid  to  this  group;  if  there  was  a  plot — and  this  is  more  than 
doubtful — it  was  hatched  not  at  the  ministry  of  the  interior 
but  at  the  mayoralty  of  Paris. 

Caussidiere  was  in  constant  communication  with  the 
other  set  of  Belgians.  Blervacq.  their  leader,  had  collected 
two  thousand  men  in  Paris  and  pressed  the  prefect  of 
police  for  money  and  arms.  Caussidiere  proposed  to  Ledru- 
Rollin  that  the  ministry  of  the  interior  should  supply  the 
expedition  with  all  that  was  needed  for  an  armed  invasion, 
should  give  it  an  appropriation  of  one  hundred  thousand 
francs,  and  should  add  to  the  expedition  two  thousand  dis- 
banded municipal  guards."  Ledru-Rollin  refused  absolutely 
to  make  any  irregular  expenditure  or  to  take  any  action 
without  the  full  knowledge  of  the  provisional  government; 
but  he  promised  to  use  his  influence  with  his  colleagues  to 

^Caussidiere  2:280-2;  Monitcur  for  1848,  p.  744. 

*  This  was  a  part  of  the  police  of  Louis  Philippe  which  had  been  dis- 
solved by  the  republican  administration. 


249]  FINANCES  AND  FOREIGN  AFFAIRS  95 

gain  free  transportation  for  the  Belgians.  At  a  meeting  of 
these  eleven  members  Ledru-RoUin  made  his  request,  and 
his  colleagues  voted  a  sum  of  money  for  this  purpose.^ 

In  his  account  of  this  affair  Caussidiere  explains  away 
the  chief  points  in  the  charges  which  are  usually  brought 
against  Ledru-Rollin  for  complicity.  Caussidiere  himself 
favored  the  expedition,  desired  to  abet  the  conspiracy  and 
suggested  this  to  his  superior,  but  Ledru-Rollin  refused 
absolutely  to  aid  in  the  plot.  The  minister  furnished  funds 
to  transport  the  Belgian  refugees  to  the  frontier,  just  as  he 
had  furnished  them  to  all  foreign  workingmen,  openly  and 
with  the  consent  of  his  colleagues,  but  he  refused,  to  Caus- 
sidiere's  regret,  to  go  further.  Garnier-Pages  well  said  of 
the  expedition :  "  M.  Ledru-Rollin  desired  it,  but  felt  that 
he  ought  not  aid  it ;  M.  Caussidiere  desired  it,  but  dared  not 
aid  it."  ^ 

Besides  furnishing  free  transportation  Ledru  ordered 
several  students  of  the  Ecole  Poly  technique  to  accompany 
the  Belgians,  partly  to  take  charge  of  the  distribution  of 
supplies,  partly  to  keep  an  eye  on  the  expedition.  Frey- 
cinet,  the  future  premier,  then  a  student  at  the  school  and, 
like  many  of  his  companions,  acting  as  a  guard  to  the  gov- 
ernment, asserts  in  his  memoirs : 

On  March  22  Ledru-Rollin  made  an  appointment  with  me 
for  that  evening  in  his  office,  Place  Beauvau.  I  found  there 
three  of  my  companions.  .  .  .  The  minister  proposed  our 
joining  the  expedition  known  under  the  name  of  Risquons- 
tnut.  He  has  been  severely  blamed  for  this  enterprise.  Many 
I)eople  have  believed  that  he  [)rcmc(litalc(l  it  with  the  idea  of 
having  a  republic  proclaimed  in  Belgium,  even  at  the  risk  of 

'Caussidiere  2:198-200;  Delvau  42;  Rcgnault  270-1;  Garnicr-l'aRcs 
7:287;  Stern  2:307-8;  Dupont  and  Blervacq  in  Quentin-Bauchart  Re- 
port 1 :  278,  241. 

'  Gamier- Pages  7 :  287. 


g6    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [250 

bringing  about  diplomatic  complications.  The  conference  at 
which  I  took  part  left  on  me  an  entirely  different  impression. 
Ledru-Rollin  appeared  to  tolerate  this  expedition  rather  than 
to  desire  it.  Not  daring  to  stop  it,  he  wished  to  restain  it, 
keep  it  within  limits.  He  hoped  that  having  prudent  men  at 
its  head,  it  would  abstain  from  excesses  on  the  route  and  per- 
haps would  not  even  cross  the  frontier.  The  detailed  in- 
structions which  he  gave  for  its  repatriation,  the  insistence  on 
avoiding  all  collisions  seemed  to  indicate  that  in  his  mind  the 
expedition  would  reduce  itself  to  a  mere  promenade  in  the 
department  of  the  North.  My  companions  understood  it  in 
this  sense  and  agreed  to  go  along.  As  for  myself,  incapable 
for  the  moment  of  enduring  a  long  march  on  foot,  I  was 
obliged  to  refuse.^ 

At  a  second  interview  on  March  24  Ledru-Rollin  gave 
to  those  who  were  to  accompany  the  expedition  money  for 
transportation  and  for  food,  and  oral  instructions.  This 
time  he  seems  to  have  more  clearly  indicated  his  unofficial 
approval.  One  of  the  students  testified  later:  ''  M.  Ledru- 
Rollin  gave  us  absolutely  no  authorization;  I  understood 
from  the  tenor  of  his  remarks,  however,  that  it  would  be 
well  if  we  succeeded."  Another  declared:  "I  remember 
that  M.  Ledru-Rollin  said  that  as  minister  he  could  not  take 
part  in  the  expedition,  but  that  as  a  citizen  he  approved  it."  ^ 

The  expedition,  eighteen  hundred  strong,  arrived  safely 
at  Lille.  The  polytechnicians  immediately  reported  to  Com- 
missioner Delescluze.  Delescluze  was  without  definite 
orders  and  did  not  like  to  do  an\i;hing  on  his  own  respon- 
sibility.^    He  provided  food  and  lodgings  for  the  troops  at 

1  Freycinet  31-2. 

'  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  2:17-9;  1:271.  Other  students  made 
similar  depositions.  One  said :  "  We  thought  an  expedition  into  Belgium 
should  be  made  to  proclaim  a  republic  there." 

*  On  these  two  facts  the  testimony  of  the  students  is  uniform,  but 
some  say  that  Delescluze  signified  his  approval,  others  his  disapproval 
of  the  expedition. — Ibid.,  i  :  271 ;  2:  17-9. 


251]  FINANCES  AND  FOREIGN  AFFAIRS  97 

Seclin  near  the  border;  that  was  clearly  what  the  minister 
of  the  interior  desired.  The  question  of  arms  was  more 
difficult.  Delescluze  had  received  through  Ledru-Rollin  an 
order  for  fifteen  hundred  rifles  for  the  Lille  National  Guard. 
The  Belgians  asked  him  for  these  arms,  and  after  hesitating 
he  sent  them  to  Seclin.  General  Negrier,  in  command  at 
Lille,  objected  to  this  transfer,  but  the  order  was  regularly- 
signed  by  the  minister  of  war.  Negrier  informed  his  chief, 
Frangois  Arago,  of  the  proceedings,  and  the  latter  tele- 
graphed to  him  to  prevent  the  Belgians  from  crossing  the 
frontier  and  to  order  the  pol)1;echnical  students  home.  This 
order  arrived  too  late  to  be  of  any  avail. ^ 

In  his  perplexity  Delescluze  wrote  to  Ledru  on  March  27 
the  following  letter,  marked  urgent: 

My    dear    minister,    My    perplexity    increases ;    the    Belgian 
division  stationed  at  Seclin,  two  leagues  from  Lille,  is  still 
there;  it  numbers  fifteen  hundred  men.     Its  discipline  is  per- 
fect and  I  believe  its  morale  is  excellent ;  but  the  chiefs,  who 
have  all  finally  arrived,   do  not   inspire  me   with   great  con- 
fidence.    I  believe  them  at  least  incapable,  and  for  the  leaders 
of   partisans   incapacity    is    fatal.      The    situation   is    difficult 
for  me.     The  Belgians  do  not  wish  to  depart  without  arms ; 
I    I  believe  that  they  should  not  receive  arms  unless  success  is 
!    almost  sure.     But  success   is  more  than  doubtful.     Belgium 
I    has  55,000  men  under  arms ;  20.000 — perhaps  even  25,000 — 
\    to  patrol  the  frontier  between  Menin  and  Maubevige.     Scat- 
tered  as  are  the  Belgian  troops,  naturally  with  their  organiza- 
I    tion  they  could  repel  the  invasion  of   1500  men  armed  and 
I    manoeuvred  in   a  mediocre  manner.     My  advice   is   that  the 
f    Belgians  return  to  their  homes  singly  and  peacefully  to  engage 
'    in   propaganda.     As   to   the    Parisians,    let    tlicin    also   return 
j    home.  j 

i        The  leaders  of  the   Belgian  expedition  coutit  on  an  insur- 

I  '  Ibid.,  I  :  274-5;  2:  12-7. 


C^    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [252 

rection  this  evening,  March  2y,  at  Ghent  and  at  Bruges.  Ac- 
cording to  the  information  I  receive,  I  am  far  from  sharing 
their  opinion.  The  army,  the  bourgeoisie,  and  all  officialdom 
are  in  general  hostile  to  ideas  coming  from  France,  even  when 
there  is  no  question  of  annexation.  They  have  been  preach- 
ing during  the  past  two  weeks  against  the  Belgian  volunteers, 
whom  they  represent  as  brigands  preparing  to  pillage.  There 
are  great  difficulties  and,  I  confess,  I  hesitate  to  launch  this 
mass  of  1500  badly  organized  men,  even  if  they  were  ac- 
companied by  3  or  4000  artisans  recruited  in  the  manufactur- 
ing towns  near  Lille. 

I  found  a  smuggler  who  made  me  the  offer  of  serving  as 
guide  to  the  expedition  and  promised  me  to  conduct  it  with- 
out striking  a  blow  as  far  as  Ghent,  the  centre  of  republican 
and  French  ideas,  because  nowhere  else  do  the  people  suffer 
so  much.  I  spoke  of  it  to  the  leaders ;  they  seem  to  be  sus- 
picious, the  misunderstanding  of  Quievrain  leaving  them  in 
doubt  as  to  the  intentions  of  the  government.  They  are  con- 
tinually thinking  of  betrayal,  and  in  vain  have  I  explained  to 
them  that  the  Quievrain  affair  occurred  due  to  an  error ;  they 
pretend  to  believe  in  that  fable  so  as  to  pose  as  victims. 

I  have  just  received  your  telegram  and  I  take  it  as  a 
purely  official  communication  to  cover  your  responsibility  in 
case  of  failure.  Send  me  another  tomorrow  without  fail.  If 
I  should  arm  and  launch  the  Belgians,  reply  by  the  single  word : 
yes.  If  the  contrary  by:  no.  I  shall  act  accordingly.  But  I 
must  decide  by  tomorrow  at  latest. 

The  chief  of  the  Belgian  police  came  to  Lille  yesterday  to 
see  me.  I  did  not  show  my  cards.  I  made  him  understand 
that  nothing  would  please  me  more  than  to  be  delivered  of 
the  disturbing  presence  of  the  Belgian  legion,  but  that  I  could 
not  deliver  it  over  to  the  Belgian  government,  etc. 

The  Parisians  are,  I  am  told,  quite  ready  to  leave,  but 
without  them  the  affair  is  hopeless.  I  signified  to  the  students 
of  the  School  that  they  could  not  march  at  the  head  of  the 
legion  in  their  uniform.     The  Belgian  police  manifested  to  me 


253]  FINANCES  AND  FOREIGN  AFFAIRS  gg 

certain  apprehensions  in  that  respect.  I  made  it  understood 
that  the  young  men  had  come  only  to  maintain  order  in  the 
convoys  and  to  protect  pubHc  safety.  The  indiscretions  of 
Degouve-Denunque's  press  add  to  my  perplexities ;  to  listen 
to  the  Journal  de  la  Somme  and  other  correspondents  of  this 
man,  the  Belgian  legion  is  marching  to  victory. 

Why  did  you  not  warn  me  of  the  band  which  passed 
through  Valenciennes?  All  the  newspapers  will  pounce  on 
me,  and  I  see  myself  in  advance  sacrificed.  After  all,  what 
difiference  does  it  make?  I  shall  leave  the  position  you  gave 
me  and  rest  a  little. 

Whatever  happens,  I  do  not  wish  to  risk  the  blood  of  these 
men  in  a  ridiculous  failure,  for  the  affair  may  not  succeed. 

No  other  news.  Reply,  reply  by  yes  or  wo.  Let  me  have 
your  telegraphic  answer  by  noon  at  the  latest. 

Your  devoted  subordinate.  Ch.  Delescluze. 

In  the  torn  margin  of  the  letter  is  the  note :  "  Your 
students  of  the  School  are  not  as  temeritous  as  they  seem 
....  They  have  quite  a  tendency  towards  peace  and  civil 
pursuits." 

On  the  back  of  the  letter  in  the  handwriting  of  Elias 
Regnault  are  the  words :  "  This  letter  was  not  received  till 
the  morning  of  the  twenty-ninth.  Immediately  the  minister 
replied  no  by  telegraph.  The  despatch  left  at  10:30. 
E.  R."  ' 

Thus  the  answer  arrived  too  late,  and  Delescluze  remained 
without  instructions.  The  commissioner  still  hesitated. 
Fsifles  had  1>een  sent  to  Seclin  and  distributed  among  the 

^Revolution  de  1848.  16:46-8;  oritfinal  in  LR  Papers  1:247-^.  The 
ordinary  version,  that  Lcdru's  answer  was  delayed  by  a  stupid  subordi- 
nate who  believed  the  single-word  messape  a  mistake  and  did  not  for- 
ward it,  is  disproved  by  this  note  of  ReRnault,  the  very  man  responsible 
for  the  false  version.  Sec  'Regnault  271-2.  Lamartine  2:  166-7  claims 
that  he  intervened  in  the  affair.  Sec  also  Stern  2:308-310;  Garnier- 
Pagcs  7 :  291-5. 


lOO    LEDRU-ROLUN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [254 

Belgians;  then  most  of  them  were  taken  back.  Finally 
Delescluze  decided  to  let  the  legion  proceed.  The  Belgians 
crossed  the  frontier  at  Risquons-tout,  near  Mouscron.  Here 
they  were  met  by  a  strong  body  of  Belgian  regulars  and 
after  an  hour's  fighting  were  driven  back  across  the  French 
frontier  with  seven  killed  and  twenty-five  wounded.  Their 
opponents  lost  an  equal  number.^ 

In  a  leter  on  March  28  Delescluze  explains  his  acts  and 
his  hopes : 

My  dear  minister,  The  die  is  cast;  this  evening  the  expedi- 
tion enters  Belgium ;  tomorrow  news.  I  shall  send  you  by 
telegraph  a  line  to  tell  you  how  Belgium  has  received  her 
children. 

I  cannot  foresee  the  outcome,  as  I  am  not  completely  reas- 
sured as  to  the  leaders.  Let  us  hope  that  the  fortune  of 
France  is  with  them,  and  that  the  sun  of  the  republic  begins 
to  rise.  But,  for  God's  sake !  Do  not  be  diplomatic  with  me. 
I  am  ready  to  do  whatever  you  tell  me.  I  believe  that  I  can 
at  need  take  any  initiative  required  by  the  case,  but  do  not 
send  me  ambiguous  communications. 

In  any  case  I  count  on  a  bill  of  indemnity.  If  the  ex- 
pedition turns  out  a  failure,  I  do  not  know  how  I  shall  ex- 
tricate myself.     You  must  aid  me. 

I  have  not  time  to  tell  you  more.  During  the  night  at  two 
o'clock,  Courtrai  will  be  in  the  hands  of  the  legion,  if  it  is 
not  wiped  out  beforehand  on  the  road. 

I  confess  that  it  is  with  anguish  that  I  see  the  young  col- 
legians prepare  for  this  struggle  as  for  a  mortal  combat,  and 
besides  they  cannot  fight  in  their  uniforms. 

At  any  rate  I  have  furnished  them  with  passports.  May 
France  watch  over  them. 

In  case  of  failure  there  will  be  a  violent  reaction  against 
you  and  me.     We  must  hold  out  against  the  storm,  but  I  shall 

*  Moniteur  for  1848,  p.  744. 


255]  FINANCES  AND  FOREIGN  AFFAIRS  loi 

have  need  of  more  patience  than  I  feel  capable  of  to  endure 
the  avalanche  that  menaces  me. 
Yours  sincerely,  Ch.  Delescluze.^ 

The  fiasco  of  Risquons-tout  caused  agitation  everywhere. 
Foreign  powers,  particularly  England,  feared  the  chauvinist 
tendencies  of  the  new  republic.  In  France  the  conserva- 
tives thundered  against  the  government  and  especially 
against  Ledru-Rollin  for  thus  violating  the  national  honor 
by  plotting  against  a  friendly  power,  while  the  extreme  re- 
volutionists denounced  the  betrayal  of  the  unfortunate  de- 
mocrats." The  provisional  government  publicly  disavowed 
the  expedition.  It  would  have  liked  to  remove  Delescluze, 
but  Ledru  insisted  on  the  retention  of  his  friend. 

On  August  25,  1848  'before  the  Assembly  Ledru  made  a 
defense  of  the  part  he  had  played  in  this  affair.  It  is  pro- 
Ijably  the  only  time  he  discussed  the  affairs  publicly. 

In  Belgium  assembled  most  of  the  ministers  of  the  late 
monarchy,  and  they  conspired  without  hindrance  by  the 
authorities.  In  the  waters  of  the  Scheldt  lay  some  British 
ships  ready  to  take  Antwerp  at  the  first  movement  made  by 
this  country.  Well,  a  Belgian  legion,  which  you  all  saw, 
which  you  applauded  when  it  traversed  the  Boulevards  .... 
departed.  I  did  for  it  what  I  had  done  for  the  Germans,  for 
the  .Savoyards.  That  there  might  be  no  disorder  I  had  them 
accompanied  by  pupils  of  the  Ecole  Polytechniquc  and  the 
Ecolc  Centrale.  ...  I  sent  arms  for  the  National  Guard  wha 
feared  disorder  on  the  frontier  from  these  scattered  legions. 
These  arms  were  taken,  some  say  they  were  distributed.  .  .  . 
But  there  is  no  deposition  that  says  that  they  were  distributed. 

^  Rcvoluliov  dc  iS.fS,  16:49;  original  in  LR  P.'ipcr.s  1:249,  marked 
very  urgent  and  personal.  It  is  doubtful  whether  the  collegians  accom- 
panied the  Belgians  across  the  frontier.  In  view  of  this  letter  one  can 
no  longer  absolve  Delescluze  of  complicity  as  docs  Proles  16-8. 

'  See  Rcgnault  277. 


1 02    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [256 

Moreover  here  is  a  telegram  which  ....  should  have  been 
reported.  The  commissioner  of  the  North  said  to  me :  These 
men  wish  to  cross  the  frontier  armed;  shall  I  let  them  pass? 
I  replied  no.  The  minister  of  war  said:  Let  the  students  be 
recalled.  They  were  recalled.  My  telegram  was  not  delivered 
in  time ;  I  removed  the  operator.  Blervacq  was  arrested ;  he 
was  at  the  head  of  those  legions  which  wished  to  enter  Belgium 
arms  in  hand.  I  ask  whether  the  Belgian  expedition,  which 
seems  so  inexplicable,  is  not  thus  explained ;  I  ask  whether 
the  Belgian  government,  perfectly  aware  of  the  facts,  ever  ad- 
dressed to  our  govermnent  any  protest  at  all?  ...  I  knew 
that  the  policy  of  France  was  not  in  opposition  to  the  manifesto* 
of  M.  de  Lamartine.^ 

Considering  the  letter  of  March  28  quoted  above  at 
length,  the  complicity  of  Delescluze  is  clear.  He  had  not 
premediated  the  expedition;  he  had  not  even  approved  it. 
But  he  frankly  admits  that  after  hesitation  he  aided  it  with 
his  advice  and  furnished  it  with  help.  The  assistance  was 
secret,  but  that  fact  does  not  absolve  him.  As  to  Ledru- 
Rollin  his  complicity  is  less  direct.  He  did  not  wish  the 
expedition,  he  refused  to  aid  it  w^hen  Caussidiere  asked  for 
aid.  He  supplied  food  and  transportation,  but  that  was  to 
remove  foreign  workingmen  from  France  and  was  done 
with  the  consent  of  his  colleagues  and  the  knowledge  of  the 
Belgian  minister  at  Paris.  He  sent  along  Pohtechnical 
students,  but  for  the  purpose  of  watching  the  expedition  and 
seeing  to  the  commisariat.  That  he  would  have  been  de- 
lighted to  see  a  Belgian  republic  is  undoubted,  that  he  would 
not  have  been  displeased  at  the  success  of  the  expedition 
was  obvious  to  many  people  to  whom  he  spoke,  but  from 
start  to  finish  as  a  government  official  he  refused  anything 
that  could  be  called  official  sanction.     Ledru,  however,  did 

^  Discours  politiqucs  2:71-3.  Gossez  129-134  believes  Ledru  favored 
but  did  not  help  the  expedition.  The  conservative  historians  believe  in 
Ledru's  complicity. 


257]  FINANCES  AND  FOREIGN  AFFAIRS  103 

not  take  adequate  measures  to  prevent  the  invasion.  He 
gave  definite  orders  to  his  subordinate,  Delescluze,  only 
when  it  was  too  late.  Besides,  he  insisted  on  the  retention 
of  the  compromised  commissioner,  thus  covering  the  latter 
with  his  own  authority.  It  is  notable  that  the  two  letters 
of  Delescluze  were  not  left  in  the  archives  of  the  ministry 
of  the  interior,  but  were  placed  among  the  private  papers  of 
Ledru. 

Summing  up,  Caussidiere  had  the  desire  but  not  the 
power  to  aid  the  expedition.  Delescluze  gave  it  a  direct  and 
surreptitious  but  no  premeditated  assistance.  Ledru-RoUin 
gave  no  official  assistance,  but  his  conduct  was  ambiguous 
and  he  accepted  after  the  fact  a  part  of  the  responsibility. 

Besides  these  foreign  workingmen,  Germans,  Savoyards, 
Belgians,  who  made  armed  invasions,  other  foreigners,  who 
remained  in  Paris  caused  trouble.  The  Poles  threatened  to 
exert  pressure  on  the  government  to  force  it  to  aid  their 
native  country.^  The  Irish  publicly  urged  that  France 
attack  England,  and  placarded  on  white  paj>er  *  old  speeches 
of  Ledru-Rollin  promising  the  aid  of  French  republicans 
against  the  oppressors  of  Ireland.  When  the  English 
ambassador,  Lord  Normanby,  protested,  the  government 
sent  him  a  reply  which  he  admitted  was  "  unobjectionable 
in  spirit."  Ledru  repudiated  the  inference  that  as  minister 
he  maintained  language  he  had  formerly  used.  Normanby 
expressed  himself  as  satisfied.^  At  Rouen  too,  foreign 
laborers  created  trouble  Normanby  complained  about  dis- 
crimination against  English  artisans  in  that  city.  Ledru  in- 
vestigated the  matter,  and  the  ambassador  declared  himself 
content.* 

'  Garnicr-Pages  7:275. 

*  Only  official  posters  could  lawfully  be  printed  on  white  paper. 

*  Normanby  i  :  362-6. 

*  Ibid..  I  :  230-2,  266-7;  Monitcur  for  1S48,  p.  932. 


CHAPTER  VII 
Father  of  Universal  Suffrage 

As  we  have  seen,  the  July  Monarchy  had  been  overthrown 
on  the  twenty-fourth  of  February,  and  a  provisional  gov- 
ernment had  been  formed.  But  still  the  mob  did  not  im- 
mediately disperse.  On  February  25  a  band  of  insurgents 
went  to  the  ministry  of  the  interior,  and  there  were  a  fewj 
moments  of  anxiety  for  the  public  archives.  Ledru-Rollin 
tried  to  calm  the  insurgents.  He  dissuaded  them  from 
rushing  to  Vincennes  to  occupy  the  arsenal  by  assuring  them 
that  Flocon  had  already  taken  possession  of  that  fort.  He 
urged  them  to  go  to  the  JNIilitary  School  to  await  the  early 
reorganization  of  the  National  Guard.  Meanwhile  another 
and  larger  group  had  marched  to  the  city  hall  and  had  de- 
manded that  the  red  flag  be  proclaimed  the  flag  of  the  re- 
public. Only  six  members  of  the  provisional  government 
were  there  at  the  time.  Louis  Blanc  defended  the  red  ban- 
ner, but  he  finally  yielded  to  the  arguments  of  his  colleagues. 
Lamartine  then  went  out  on  the  balcony,  and  in  one  of  his 
most  effective  speeches  persuaded  the  crowd  to  accept  the 
tricolor.  Ledru  had  arrived  during  the  tumult,  but  all  his 
efforts  to  get  through  the  crowd  were  fruitless,  and  he  had 
been  obliged  to  sit  in  a  concierge's  lodge  for  three  hours 
listening  to  the  rumbling  of  the  riot  of  which  he  did  not 
know  the  cause. ^ 

Soon  after  Ledru  had  finally  rejoined  his  colleagues,  a 

1  Stern  2:17-8;  Garnier-Pages  6:62;  Castille  1:329-330;  Constifu- 
tionnel,  Debats,  February  26,  1848;   Times,  February  29. 

104  [258 


259]  FATHER  OF  UNIVERSAL  SUFFRAGE  105 

second  invasion  arrived  demanding  the  Right  of  Labor. 
The  Droit  an  Travail  was  a  catch-word  drawn  from  such 
sociaHst  writers  as  Louis  Blanc  and  was  most  popular  at 
this  period.  It  meant  the  right  of  every  citizen  to  be  guar- 
anteed remunerative  work  by  the  government.  Lamartine 
again  successfully  exerted  his  inexhaustible  eloquence,  and 
the  workingmen  abandoned  their  demand.  But  Louis  Blanc 
hastily  drew  up  a  decree  that  granted  them  exactly  what  they 
had  renounced,  that  guaranteed  work  to  all  citizens,  and 
Ledru  added  the  clause:  "The  provisional  government  re- 
turned to  the  workingmen,  to  whom  it  belongs,  the  million 
which  fell  due  on  the  civil  lists."  After  this  the  members  of 
the  provisional  government  were  obliged  to  appear  once 
more  before  the  crowd  and  be  acclaimed  anew.'^  On  the 
next  day  the  provisional  government  were  again  forced  to 
appear  before  the  people.  On  February  27  the  republic  was 
formally  proclaimed  at  the  column  of  July.' 

There  were  also  disputes  within  the  council.  On  Feb- 
ruary 26  the  question  of  the  red  flag  versus  the  tricolor 
was  discussed.  Ledru  disployed  the  design  for  a  tricolor 
flag  which  had  been  painted  by  David  at  the  demand  of 
Robespierre,  and  said :  "  The  tricolor  is  the  flag  of  the 
Convention,  the  flag  of  '93  and  of  '94.  What  more  is 
desired?"  Naturally  the  moderates  spoke  on  the  same  side 
although  giving  different  arguments.  Louis  Blanc  alone 
oi)posed  the  tricolor,  but  he  was  forced  to  give  way  after 
his  colleagues  had  yielded  so  far  as  to  order  officials  to 

'  Stern  2:40-1 ;  Blanc  i :  127;  Frcycinct  23;  Moniicur  jar  iS.jS,  p.  1503. 

*  Monitcvr  for  18^8,  p.  507;  Lamartine  1:293.  At  tlic  TiiikTics  the 
rioters  who  had  captured  it  refused  to  evacuate  the  Ijuilding  and  were 
ready  to  oppose  by  force  the  police  under  Caussidierc.  The  new  gov- 
ernor of  the  Tuileries  was  oblipfed  to  promise  a  public  dinner  and  re- 
ception, and  Ledru  and  several  of  his  colleagues  were  forced  to  come  in 
person  to  confirm  this  promise  before  the  insurgents  would  retire. — 'St. 
Amant  25-6;  Garnicr-Pagcs  6:301-2;  Stern-  2:179. 


I06    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [260 

wear  a  red  rosette  in  their  button-hole  as  an  emblem  of  the 
republic/  Again  when  Louis  Blanc  demanded  the  creation 
of  a  ministry  of  labor,  Ledru-Rollin  joined  the  majority  in 
opposing  the  suggestion." 

Some  writers  claim  that  the  members  of  the  majority  were 
considering  the  advisability  of  ousting  the  radicals  and  soc- 
ialists from  the  council.  On  the  night  of  February  27-28 
the  moderates  were  to  meet  at  2  A.  M.  at  the  house  of 
Marie.  Marrast  and  Pagnerre  arrived  on  time,  and  Beth- 
mont  and  Carnot  made  a  tardy  appearance.  But  Garnier- 
Pages,  exhausted,  sent  his  excuses.  It  was  necessary  to 
get  Marie  out  of  bed  as  he  had  forgotten  the  appointment. 
Lamartine  thought  the  meeting  was  for  the  next  day. 
Arago  had  been  informed  too  late.  The  absence  of  the 
last  two  made  the  conference  useless.^  It  is  difficult  to  be- 
lieve that  this  conference  was  a  very  serious  attempt  to 
change  the  personnel  of  the  government. 

But  all  was  not  discord  within  the  provisional  government. 
The  abolition  of  the  death  penalty  for  political  offenses  re- 
ceived unanimous  approval.  Above  all,  Ledru-Rollin's 
decree  on  the  elections  was  hailed  with  JQy.  Ever  since 
Ledru-Rollin  had  entered  the  field  of  politics,  he  had  been 
preaching  universal  suffrage,  advocating  it  as  the  sole  means 
of  expressing  the  popular  will.  When  at  last  he  came  into 
power,  as  minister  of  the  interior,  he  was  entrusted  with 
the  duty  of  preparing  the  decree  that  should  realize  this 
aspiration.  The  importance  of  the  organization  of  univer- 
sal suffrage  cannot  be  overestimated.  It  is  the  one  vital  re- 
form of  the  provisional  government,  nay  more,  of  the 
second  republic,  that  has  endured  to  the  present  day.     When 

'  Garnier-Pages  6:  101-3. 

'  Stern  2 :  44. 

'  Regnault  184;  6tern  2:  149-150;  Sarrans  180-1. 


26l]  FATHER  OF  UNIVERSAL  SUFFRAGE  107 

everything  else  about  Ledru-Rollin  is  forgotten,  he  will  still 
be  remembered  in  France  as  the  Father  of  Universal  Suf- 
frage. From  February  25  to  March  5  he  devoted  his  ener- 
gies to  the  task  of  preparing  a  workable  scheme.  Cormenin 
and  Isambert,  who  had  published  essays  on  universal  suf- 
frage, were  largely  responsible  for  details,  but  the  guiding 
force  came  from  the  minister  of  the  interior. 

On  March  5  the  decree  was  submitted  to  the  council  and 
the  following  day  it  appeared  in  the  Moniteur.  Elections 
to  a  constituent  assembly  were  to  take  place  April  9.  The 
total  number  of  representatives  was  to  be  nine  hundred, 
apportioned  among  the  departments,  Algeria,  and  the 
colonies  on  the  basis  of  population.  The  suffrage  was  to 
be  direct  and  universal.  All  Frenchmen  aged  twenty-one 
who  had  resided  for  six  months  in  the  commune  were  given 
the  vote  provided  they  had  not  been  judicially  deprived  of 
or  suspended  from  the  exercise  of  all  civil  rights.  All 
Frenchmen  aged  twenty-five  were  eligible  for  the  Chamber. 
Balloting  was  to  be  secret.  Elections  were  to  take  place 
in  the  chief  town  of  the  canton  and  the  votes  were  to  be 
counted  there,  but  were  to  be  verified  in  the  capital  of  the 
department.  Each  ballot  was  to  contain  as  many  names 
as  there  were  candidates  in  the  department  (scrutin  de  liste) 
and  two  thousand  votes  were  needed  for  election.  The 
representatives  were  to  receive  as  pay  twenty-five  francs  a 
day.     The  legislature  was  to  assemble  April  20.^ 

On  March  8  a  supplementary  circular  gave  further  de- 
tails. The  first  part  dealt  with  the  drawing  up  of  the  re- 
gistration lists  and  included  such  subjects  as  age,  nation- 
ality, incapacities,  residence,  and  so  forth.  The  second  part 
was  concerned  with  electoral  assemblies :  the  work  of  the 

'  Moniteur  for  1848,  p.  549.  The  nearest  equivalent.s  in  the  United 
States  to  communes,  cantons,  and  departments  are  villages,  counties, 
and  states. 


1 08    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [262 

mayor,  advice  to  be  given  electors,  composition  of  the  board 
of  elections,  form  of  the  ballot,  duration  of  the  election, 
counting  of  the  ballots,  the  army  vote,  the  proclamation  of 
the  result.^  Special  regulations  for  Paris,  Algeria,  and  the 
colonies,  and  further  explanations  to  electors,  mayors,  and 
commissioners  were  issued  later.^ 

The  work  of  preparing  for  the  elections  was  entrusted 
to  the  commissioners  of  the  departments.  Under  Louis 
Philippe  these  officials  had  been  called  prefects,  but  the  re- 
publican regime  changed  the  name,  partly  because  it  was 
desired  to  indicate  a  break  with  monarchical  administration, 
partly  because  the  new  officials  would  accept  only  a  tem- 
porary appointment  and  the  position  of  prefect  signified  a 
semi-permanent  office.  The  revolution  of  1848  had  been 
a  purely  Parisian  affair,  and  the  prefects  had  learned  of  the 
progress  of  the  insurrection  only  by  five  successive  tele- 
grams. The  last  of  these  despatches  was  from  Ledru- 
Rollin,  informing  them  of  the  installation  of  the  provi- 
sional government,  and  adding;  "  You  will  take  immediately 
all  measures  necessary  to  insure  to  the  new  government  pop- 
ular support  and  public  tranquility."  The  prefects,  accus- 
tomed to  obey  any  orders  received  from  the  central  authori- 
ties, acquiesced  in  the  change,  but  in  at  least  thirty  of  the 
eighty-five  departments  local  revolutions  took  place  and  de- 
partmental republican  committees  replaced  the  prefects.^ 

It  was  the  duty  of  the  minister  of  the  interior  to  pro- 
vide a  regularly  constituted  administration.  Officials  who 
had  been  appointed  by  Guizot  could  not  be  left  to  carry  out 

1  Monifeur  for  1848.  p.  579. 

^Ibid.,  579,  605-6,  658,  722,  726,  762,  777-8,  786. 

'  Most  of  the  facts  concerning  the  commissioners  are  drawn  from  the 
admirable  article  of  Haury  in  the  Revolution  frangaise  57:438-475.  My 
account  generally  gives  a  brief  resume  of  his  article,  though  several 
additions  and  occasional  slight  differences  in  deductions  are  made. 


263]      FATHER  OF  UNIVERSAL  SUFFRAGE  109 

republican  measures.  At  an  early  date  Ledru-Rollin  con- 
vened at  his  office  his  colleagues  in  the  government  and  sub- 
mitted to  them  his  choices  as  commissioners.  All  were 
approved,  only  two  having  been  strongly  contested.  Deles- 
cluze  at  Lille  and  Deschamps  at  Rouen  were  confirmed  in 
their  functions  only  upon  the  insistance  of  Ledru-Rollin. 
We  have  already  seen  how  Delescluze  was  later  compro- 
mised in  the  fiasco  of  the  Belgian  democrats  at  Risquons- 
tout.  Only  the  friendship  of  Ledru-Rollin  maintained  him 
in  his  office.^  Deschamps  also  met  with  difficulties  as  com- 
missioner. He  was  the  leader  of  the  radical  republicans  of 
Rouen,  but  the  moderate  republicans,  who  probably  had  a 
majority  in  the  department  of  the  Lower  Seine,  desired  his 
replacement  by  their  leader.  Senard.  The  matter  was 
brought  before  the  provisional  government.  Ledru  declared 
that  the  removal  of  the  commissioner  would  weaken  the 
hands  of  authority,  that  the  Rouen  republicans  should  all 
unite  and  forget  old  feuds  as  the  members  of  the  council 
had  done,  that  the  attack  on  a  subordinate  holding  the  same 
opinions  as  himself  was  really  directed  against  him,  that  he 
would  yield  to  his  colleagues  on  most  choices,  but  that  he 
would  resign  rather  than  abandon  j^rsonal  friends  such  as 
Deschamps  and  Delescluze.  In  the  presence  of  such  a  de- 
claration all  objections  disappeared,  but  Senard  went  to  the 
legislature  two  months  later  with  a  decided  prejudice 
against  Ledru-Rollin.' 

Of  the  thirty  departments  that  had  had  local  revolutions 
in  only  twelve  were  the  provincial  leaders  appointed  commis- 
sioners, but  in  five  others  they  were  associated  with  the  new 
appointee  sent  from  Paris.     Tn  the  fifty-five  other  depart- 

*  For  details  as  to  Delescluze,  sec  Gosscz.  I^ter,  after  Delcscluzc's 
check  in  the  April  elections,  Ledru  wrote  him  a  puhh'c  letter,  begging 
him  to  remain  as  commissioner. 

'  Gamier- Pages  6:  299-301,  351-2. 


1 1  o   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [264 

ments  commissioners  came  from  the  capital ;  thirty-six  of 
these  remained  in  office  until  at  least  March  15,  thirteen  had 
other  commissioners  associated  with  them  in  their  func- 
tions, and  six  resigned  or  were  removed.  All  the  appointees, 
with  the  single  exception  of  Emmanuel  Arago,  and  he  was 
not  named  at  Ledru's  initiative,  were  natives  of  the  district 
to  which  were  sent.  Twenty-two  had  been  deputies,  ten 
mayors,  eighteen  the  recognized  republican  leaders  of  the  de- 
partment.^ "  The  first  commissioners,"  says  Haury,  "  were 
not  selected  without  deliberation  as  has  been  believed ;  neither 
were  they  fierce  revolutionists."  '  Of  the  eighty  whose 
party  affiliations  Haury  knew,  fourteen  belonged  to  the 
dynastic  left,  twenty-two  were  moderates  like  Lamartine, 
twenty-two  belonged  to  the  National  group,  and  only  twenty- 
two  followed  the  banner  of  the  Rcforme. 

The  commissioners  were  not  named  in  a  hurry,  for  it  was 
March  9  before  the  last  of  them  were  appointed."  By  their 
characters  and  by  their  past  records  most  of  them  seem  to 
have  justified  their  appointment.  Of  the  one  hundred  and 
ten  commissioners,  sixty-seven  were  later  elected  to  the 
Assembly,  while  eleven  others  who  could  have  been  elected 
were  restrained  by  conscientious  scruples  from  becoming 
candidates.     In  sixty  of  the  departments  the  commissioners 

'  Statistics  are  available  for  only  sixty-one  departments. 

*  Rez-olution  frangaise  57 :  499. 

^  Melun  1 :  263-4  speaks  of  Ledrii  marching  around  in  his  office  on 
February  25,  wearing  a  tricolor  scarf  and  a  great  cavalry  sword  and 
hastening  the  departure  of  the  commissioners  who  looked  like  traveling 
salesmen.  One  need  only  point  out  that  on  February  25  practically  no 
appointments  had  been  made.  Muller  117-8  claims  that  Struck,  a  dy- 
nastic liberal,  was  appointed  commissioner  of  the  Upper  Rhine  merely 
because  he  happened  to  come  to  the  ministry  for  a  passport.  The  only 
serious  bit  of  evidence  is  that  of  Jules  Favre  in  the  Quentin-Rauchart 
Report  1:289:  "The  commissioners  were  named  without  discernment, 
first  come,  first  served." 


265]  FATHER  OF  UNIVERSAL  SUFFRAGE  m 

appointed  before  March  15  were  popular;  in  twenty  others 
they  seem  to  have  been  satisfactory.  In  only  four  were 
their  serious  difficulties.  We  have  already  seen  the  troubles 
of  Delescluze  and  of  Deschamps.  In  the  Aube  there  was 
friction  between  the  two  original  joint  commissioners,  easily 
adjusted  when  a  third  one  arrived.  At  Lyons  the  extremist 
workingmen  broke  out  in  a  riot. 

From  the  start  torrents  of  abuse  were  leveled  against  the 
commissioners.^  The  most  definite  accusation  was  that 
brought  against  a  certain  ex-convict  named  Riancourt,  who 
was  not  a  commissioner  at  all.  The  conservatives  charged 
that  Ledru-RoUin,  knowing  of  this  man's  past,  selected  him 
as  commissioner,  and  that  he  even  believed  in  appointing 
assassins  to  high  positions.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Riancourt 
was  merely  a  police  superintendent ;  he  was  appointed  not  by 
the  minister  but  by  a  subordinate;  he  had  been  recommended 
by  deputy-mayor  Buchez  at  the  suggestion  of  Mgr.  Affre, 
Archbishop  of  Paris.  Riancourt's  case  does  not  require 
serious  consideration  when  inquiring  into  the  qualities  of 
Ledru's  appointees. 

At  first  the  commissioners  were  left  largely  to  their  own 
resources,  but  when  Ledru  had  completed  the  decree  apply- 
ing universal  suffrage,  he  turned  his  attention  to  giving 
definite  instructions  to  the  commissioners.  Jules  Favre  was 
entrusted  with  the  work  of  preparing  the  first  draft.  Ledru- 
Rollin  found  this  too  mild.  The  minister,  the  secretary- 
general,  and  the  chief  of  cabinet,  Elias  Regnault,  discussed 
modifications  and  drew  up  the  final  form  of  the  instructions 
to  the  commissioners.  On  March  8  it  was  sent  to  all  the 
departments.' 

'  Sc-e  Beaumont- Vassy  4:146;  Capctiguc  2:215-221;  Castillc  2:40-1; 
Chamicr  i  :  153-9;  Corkran  335;  Lavarennc  149-159;  Normanby  2:  154-51 
preface  to  the  edition  of  Bulletins  of  the  Republic,  viii-ix,  etc.  For  de- 
fense, see  Blanc  i :  383-6;  Lamartine  2:85-6;  Mill  362-4;  Regnault  305-7. 

*  Regnault  155,   193;  Favre  in  Qucnlin-Bauchart  Report  i  :  2RS. 


1 12    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [266 

It  declared : 

The  republic  which  we  have  inaugurated  is  not  the  chance 
result  of  a  moment  of  passion.  ...  It  was  slowly  constituted 
by  the  progress  of  popular  reason.  .  .  .  That  is  why  no  hesita- 
tion or  dissent  was  manifest ;  France  had  but  one  voice  be- 
cause it  had  but  one  soul.  .  .  .  Your  first  duty  should  be  to 
make  it  understood  that  the  republic  has  no  thought  of  ven- 
geance, at  least  so  long  as  this  generosity  does  not  degenerate 
into  weakness.  In  abstaining  from  all  prosecutions  for  earlier 
political  acts  or  opinions,  take  as  your  general  rule  that  all 
political  functions  can  be  entrusted  ....  only  to  tried  repub- 
licans. .  .  .  Do  not  bind  the  officials  by  instructions;  animate 
them  by  your  zeal.  Through  the  elections  they  hold  in  their 
hands  the  destinies  of  France ;  let  them  work  for  a  National 
Assembly  capable  of  understanding  and  achieving  the  work  of 
the  people;  in  a  word,  all  old-line,  not  netv  republicans.^ 

Less  rigor  in  regard  to  officials  whose  role  is  purely  ad- 
ministrative. .  .  .  Seeking  thus  to  remain  firm  and  just  to- 
wards agents  placed  under  your  orders,  you  will  demand 
active  and  devoted  assistance.  This  aid  should  tend  to  reas- 
sure the  timid  and  calm  the  impatient.  The  former  take 
fright  at  vain  phantoms,  the  latter  wish  to  precipitate  events  in 
accordance  with  their  ardent  hopes.  .  .  .  Moreover,  do  not 
forget  that  you  are  acting  provisionably.  .  .  .  There  will  be 
numerous  and  diverse  protests ;  note  them  carefully.  ...  It  is 
suppression  which  alters  and  corrupts  public  thought ;  liberty 
purifies  and  expands  it.  Nevertheless  if  temerity  of  language 
....  instead  of  applying  itself  to  general  ideas  ....  attacks 
persons,  it  is  your  duty  to  require  judicial  intervention  to  stop 
such  an  abuse  ....  Upon  your  arrival  at  your  posts  you 
should  make  friends  with  the  influential  patriots ;  their  counsel 
should  always  have  great  value  with  you.  .  .  .  There  is  no 

^  This  is  the  inadequate  translation  of  Jwnuncs  de  la  vcille.  pas  du 
lendemain.  These  two  terms  distinguish  those  who  were  avowed  repub- 
licans before  February  24  and  those  who  accepted  the  republic  after  the 
revolution. 


267]  FATHER  OF  UNIVERSAL  SUFFRAGE  113 

need  of  telling  you  to  give  special  attention  to  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  National  Guard.  .  .  .  Finally,  devote  yourself 
....  to  whatever  concerns  the  laboring  class.  ...  It  is  by 
and  through  it  that  the  republic  was  founded,  the  mission  of 
which  is  to  end  its  sufferings  and  assure  its  rights.  If  urgent 
necessity  appears  to  demand  exceptional  measures,  refer  them 
to  me  immediately.  .  .  .  Do  not  disquiet  respectable  vested 
interests,  for  their  troubles  might  injure  the  very  persons  you 
wish  to  protect.  ...  By  destroying  machinery  the  working- 
men  injure  their  own  cause.  ...  A  little  longer  and  these 
marvels  of  human  genius  ....  will  enrich  all  those  who  now 
denounce  them.  .  .  .  The  future  is  ours  if  we  are  frankly  re- 
volutionary, if  ...  .  our  acts  conform  to  the  spirit  of  fra- 
ternity. .  .  .To  us  belongs  the  duty  of  reassuring  the  public 
....  To  give  the  world  an  example  of  self-control  after  a 
brilliant  victory  ....  is  the  goal  of  our  common  efforts.  In 
order  that  mine  may  be  efificacious  I  need  your  aid.  .  .  P- 

As  a  whole  the  effect  of  this  circular  was  good.  Liberal 
and  radical  newspapers  praised  it  mildly;  conservatives  re- 
sented only  the  exclusion  of  the  new  republicans.  Gamier- 
Pages,  a  typical  moderate,  writes :  "  This  language  is  true 
and  noble.  It  is  that  of  a  statesman,  firm  and  at  the  same 
time  conciliatory."  ^  The  idea  of  propagating  republican 
doctrines  is  contained  in  the  circular,  which,  however,  is  do- 
minated by  the  idea  of  conciliation.  Workingmen  were  at  last 
to  receive  attention,  but  vested  interests  were  to  be  reassured 
and  coaxed  rather  than  frightened  into  a  loyal  acceptance  of 
democracy.  There  was  but  one  phrase  that  could  arouse 
opposition,  the  italicized  words  advising  that  the  work  of 
constructing  a  republican  government  be  left  in  the  hands 
of  old  and  tried  advocates  of  republicanism,  a  doctrine  sup- 

1  Discours  politiqucs  2:  1-7;  Monitciir  for  1S48,  p.  564.  This  circular 
was  supplemented  by  a  similar  one  to  the  mayors  the  following  day. — 
Monitcur,  572. 

'  Garnier-Pages  6 :  358. 


1 1 4   LEDR U-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REP UBLIC    [268 

ported  by  the  National  as  well  as  by  the  Reforme,  and  at 
first  accepted  by  many  conservative  newspapers.  But 
former  parliamentarians,  particularly  the  members  of  the 
dynastic  left,  were  unwilling  to  be  left  out  and  resented  this 
exclusion.  Many  of  Barrot's  partisans  had  loyally  accepted 
the  February  revolution  (Cremieux,  for  instance,  was  a 
member  of  the  government)  and  felt  that  they  were  entitled 
to  a  voice  in  the  new  regime.  The  futility  of  demanding 
from  the  fourteen  commissioners  who  has  been  members  of 
the  dynastic  left  that  they  work  against  their  own  party  is 
apparent. 

A  far  more  vigorous  note  was  struck  in  the  famous  cir- 
cular sent  out  on  March  12: 

.  .  .  .  What  are  your  powers?  They  are  unlimited. 
Agents  of  a  revolutionary  authority,  you  are  also  revolution- 
ary. The  victory  of  the  people  has  imposed  on  you  the  duty 
of  proclaiming,  of  consolidating  its  work.  For  the  accomplish- 
ment of  this  duty,  you  are  bound  only  by  your  conscience,  you 
should  act  for  the  public  welfare  as  circumstances  may  re- 
quire. Thanks  to  our  customs,  this  mission  is  not  a  terrible 
one.  Up  to  now  you  have  had  no  serious  resistance  to  com- 
bat. .  .  .  Republican  sentiment  should  be  aroused  and  for  that 
purpose  it  is  necessary  to  confine  all  political  functions  to 
sure  and  sympathetic  men.  Everywhere  prefects  and  sub- 
prefects  must  be  changed.  ...  If  is  for  you  to  make  the 
people  understand  that  we  cannot  maintain  those  whose  ever}'- 
act  was  corrupt.  The  appointment  of  sub-commissioners  re- 
placing these  officials  belongs  to  you.  You  may  refer  to  me 
whenever  you  have  any  doubts.  Preferably  choose  men  from 
the  capital  of  the  department.  Do  not  avoid  young  men 
....  Superintend  the  replacement  of  mayors  and  their 
deputies.  Designate  them  provisionally.  ...  If  the  municipal 
councils  are  hostile,  dissolve  them.  .  .  .  but  have  recourse  to 
this  measure  only  in  cases  of  dire  necessity.  I  believe  that 
the  great  majority  of  municipal  councils  can  be  maintained 
if  new  men  are  placed  at  their  head. 


269]  FATHER  OF  UNIVERSAL  SUFFRAGE  115 

The  armed  force  is  under  your  orders  .  .  .  but  you 
should  use  great  care  in  this  part  of  your  functions.  .  .  . 
Above  all  win  it  over  by  showing  your  esteem  for  it. 

....  Demand  loyal  support  from  the  magistracy;  when- 
ever you  do  not  receive  it,  inform  me.  ...  I  shall  immediately 
lay  the  matter  before  the  minister  of  justice.  As  to  the  ir- 
removable magistracy,  watch  it,  and  if  any  member  of  it  shows 
himself  openly  hositle,  use  your  right  of  suspension. 

You  will  receive  from  me  detailed  instructions  as  to  the 
organization  of  the  National  Guard.  .  .  . 

The  elections  are  our  great  duty.  On  the  composition  of 
the  National  Assembly  depend  our  destinies.  The  Assembly 
must  be  animated  by  a  revolutionary  spirit;  otherwise  we 
march  toward  anarchy  and  civil  war.  Be  on  guard  against 
the  intrigues  of  double-faced  men  who  having  served  royalty 
now  call  themselves  the  servants  of  the  people.  .  .  .  You  must 
realize  that  to  win  the  honor  of  sitting  in  the  National  As- 
sembly one  must  be  free  from  the  traditions  of  the  past.  .  .  . 
The  workingmen,  who  are  the  vital  force  of  the  nation, 
should  choose  from  among  themselves  those  who  are  recom- 
mended by  their  intelligence,  their  devotion,  their  morality 
....  Enlighten  the  electors  and  repeat  to  them  incessantly 
that  the  reign  of  the  monarchists  is  finished.  .  .  .  The  educa- 
tion of  the  country  is  not  completed.  It  is  for  you  to  guide  it. 
Encourage  ....  the  meeting  of  electoral  committees.  Ex- 
amine carefully  the  titles  of  candidates.  Support  only  those 
who  appear  to  present  the  best  guarantees  of  republican 
opinion.  .  .  .  Let  election  day  be  a  triumph  for  the  revolution.^ 

This  circular  of  March  12  marked  the  first  step  in  a 
change  of  policy,  but  not  a  long  step.  It  was  rather  a 
change  in  emphasis  than  in  substance.  The  idea  of  con- 
ciliation still  existed,  but  had  become  subordinate  to  that  of 
republicanization.  More  importance  was  given  to  the  duty 
of  commissioners  to  educate  the  people  in  ideas  of  demo- 

'  Discours  politiques  2 :  8-12. 


1 16    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [270 

cracy  and  to  guide  the  voters  in  their  choice  of  candidates. 
The  commissioners,  however,  were  not  given  exorbitant 
powers.  The  real  meaning  of  the  words  unlimited  powers 
is  explained  in  the  text  itself.  As  agents  of  the  revolution- 
ary authority  their  powers  were  undefined  and  were  to  be 
guided  by  the  general  laws  of  equity.  There  were  specific 
recommendations  not  to  use  their  full  authority  with  the 
army  and  there  were  definite  restrictions  as  to  their  power 
over  the  judiciary.  It  was  clearly  the  idea  of  Ledru  and 
Favre  that  intimidation  was  to  be  used  only  in  those  places 
where  reaction  had  set  in.  Favre  declared  a  few  months 
later :  "  The  words  unlimited  pozuers  were  merely  the  exact 
repetition  of  the  verbal  orders  originally  given  to  the  com- 
missioners  The  aim  of  the  circular  was  to  limit  the 

powers  of  the  latter  while  proclaiming  their  great  extent  "  ^ 
And  Ledru  told  the  Assembly :  "  Do  not  misinterpret 
words.  I  used  the  phrase  unlimited  powers  while  telling  the 
commissioners  that  the  limit  was  the  customs  of  the  country 
....  Tell  me  if  a  single  of  these  commissioners  was  guilty 
of  any  misdeed."  " 

There  were  three  ways  of  dealing  with  the  attempts  at 
reaction.  The  first  was  that  of  conciliation.  This  was  the 
method  the  minister  seemed  to  adopt  in  the  circular  of  March 
8 ;  this  was  the  method  desired  by  the  minority  of  the  pro- 
visional  government.^     Probably  it  would  have  been  the 

^  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  i :  280-1. 

*  Speech  of  August  25,  184S,  Discours  politiques  2:70.  On  April  12, 
1849,  Ledru  denied  that  the  circulars  gave  rise  to  the  reaction ;  he 
asserted  that  the  reaction  began  the  very  day  after  the  revolution. — Ibid., 
2 :  272-4. 

^  On  March  6  Carnot  had  issued  a  circular  warning  the  teachers  that 
in  choosing  representatives  education  was  not  everything.  This  was 
hailed  as  an  appeal  to  hand  the  government  over  to  the  illiterate.  It  was 
considered  as  the  complement  of  the  circulars  of  Ledru-Rollin,  but,  as 
Carnot  was  a  moderate,  naturally  there  was  no  connection  with  Ledru's 
circulars. 


271]  FATHER  OF  UNIVERSAL  SUFFRAGE  ny 

best  method,  but  it  might  have  made  the  monarchists  too 
audacious  and  it  might  have  cooled  the  ardor  of  the  loyal 
republicans.  The  second  method  was  that  of  repression,  the 
method  of  the  reign  of  terror,  of  the  deputies  on  mission, 
of  Carrier  at  Nantes.  This  was  the  system  which  the  con- 
servatives attributed  to  Ledru-Rollin,  the  system  they  de- 
nounced in  the  press,  the  system  of  truly  unlimited  powers. 
Such  a  method  is  justified  only  by  overpowering  circum- 
stances and  Ledru  was  not  so  bloodthirsty  or  so  fanatically 
devoted  to  the  precedents  of  the  Convention  as  to  desire  the 
resurrection  of  the  reign  of  terror.  But  there  was  a  middle 
course,  the  policy  of  threats.  Such  a  policy  was  particularly 
suited  to  Ledru-Rollin's  temperament.  It  meant  making 
large  threats,  but  not  acting  on  them,  frightening  the  con- 
servatives from  open  resistance,  but  not  following  up  these 
menaces  by  actions.  It  meant  conferring  unlimited  powers, 
but  refraining  from  the  use  of  them.  In  another  country 
than  France  such  a  procedure  might  have  worked,  but 
Frenchmen  are  not  terrified  by  words.  The  reactionaries 
quickly  realized  that  the  radicals  would  remain  within  the 
bounds  of  the  law,  but  they  realized  also  that  the  words 
would  give  them  a  weapon  with  which  to  belabor  the 
minister  of  the  interior.  These  phrases  published  through- 
out the  country  would  drown  the  true  message  of  the  re- 
publicans, the  message  of  fraternity. 

There  is  some  truth  in  the  satirical  judgment  of  Tocque- 
ville : 

Ledru-Rollin  was  merely  a  fat  boy,  very  sanguine  and  very 
sensual,  devoid  of  principles  and  almost  of  ideas,  with  no 
audacity  of  mind  or  heart,  and  even  without  naughtiness,  for 
he  naturally  wished  good  to  very  one  and  was  incapable  of 
cutting  off  the  head  of  any  of  his  opponents,  unless  perhaps 
as  an  historical  reminiscence  or  as  a  favor  to  a  friend.^ 

*  Tocqucvillc  169. 


Il8   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [^2^2 

Ledru  had  never  expected  the  circular  of  J\Iarch  12  to 
have  any  effect  on  the  general  public;  it  was  meant  for  the 
commissioners  alone.  Great  was  his  surprise  when  he  re- 
ceived on  the  followng  day  a  police  report  from  Carlier, 
sa3nng :  "  The  circular  has  given  rise  to  alarm  and  almost 
to  panic  among  the  middle  classes.  The  small  traders  and 
the  small  capitalists  are  persuaded  that  the  government 
wishes  to  exclude  from  the  legislature  the  ex-deputies  who 
had  been  in  continual  opposition  to  the  late  government, 
and  they  conclude  that  only  extreme  republicans  are  w^anted 
in  order  to  arrive  at  communism  and  the  ruin  of  all  who 
possess  anything."  ^  The  circular  also  seriously  affected  the 
financial  market.^  The  British  ambassador  rushed  off  to 
Lamartine  to  demand  explanations.^  The  conservative 
newspapers  grasped  at  the  circular  as  the  first  tangible  act 
of  the  new  government  which  they  could  safely  attack,  and 
after  the  troubles  of  March  16  and  17  their  attacks  increased 
in  violence.'*  The  Reforme,  the  National,  and  the  other 
governmental  journals  explained  the  meaning  of  the  circular.* 
but  their  utterances  passed  unheeded.  The  extreme  re- 
volutionists accepted  the  interpretation  of  the  conserv^atives 
and  defended  the  minister.^ 

Ledru' s  colleagues  in  the  government  were  completely 
taken  by  surprise;  they  learned  of  the  circular  first  by  the 
Moniteiir  and  the  general  excitement.  Garnier-Pages 
brought  up  the  subject  at  a  council  meeting  on  March  13. 
The  minister  of  the  interior  expressed  his  surprise  and  re- 

*  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  2 :  216. 
'Garnier-Pages  6:2)7^;  Constittttionnel,  March  13. 

*  Normanby  i :  216-9. 

*  The  claim  that  they  did  not  attack  until  after  !\rarch  17  will  not  hold 
water,  as  numerous  tirades  could  be  cited  in  the  papers  of  ]\Iarch  13-15. 

^Reforme,  March  15,  1848;  National,  March  14. 
^  E.  g.  Delvau  371-2,  402-3. 


273]  FATHER  OF  UNIVERSAL  SUFFRAGE  ng 

gret  at  the  impression  made  which  to  him  was  strange  and 
incomprehensible.  The  circular  was  read  phrase  by  phrase 
and  in  the  eyes  of  the  council  did  not  appear  to  warrant  the 
wave  of  hostile  criticism.  Cremieux  approved  all  of  the 
document  except  the  words  unlimited  pozvers.  Garnier- 
Pages  considered  that  it  was  a  mistake  to  utter  threats. 
"  You  should  have  acted,  not  talked,"  he  told  Ledru.  The 
council  did  not  wish  to  be  silent ;  that  would  mean  approval 
of  the  circular.  Neither  would  it  disavow  it;  that  would 
weaken  its  authority.  On  the  advice  of  the  minister  of  the 
interior  himself  it  was  decided  to  publish  no  declaration  that 
day,  but  at  the  first  opportunity  to  issue  a  proclamation 
tending  to  soften  the  effect  of  the  expressions  which  had 
gone  beyond  the  objects  and  intentions  of  the  minister. 
The  provisional  government  also  decided  that  in  future  all 
important  circulars  should  be  discussed  by  the  entire  gov- 
ernment before  publication.^ 

1  Gamier- Pages  6 :  377-8.  The  account  of  Lamartine  2 :  121-8  differs 
slightly.  False  rumors  of  this  meeting  circulated.  Normanby  i :  239 
relates  that  Ledru  tried  to  intimidate  the  majority  of  the  government, 
that  he  threatened  to  appeal  to  the  crowd  from  a  window  of  the  council 
room,  and  that  he  was  only  deterred  by  Garnier-Pages  threatening  to 
shoot  him  if  he  moved  toward  the  window. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
The  Se\^nteenth  of  March 

In  Paris  both  extreme  parties  were  dissatisfied  with  the 
provisional  government.  The  ultra-revolutionists  were  dis- 
pleased that  Louis  Blanc  had  not  been  made  minister  of 
labor,  and  they  demanded  loudly  the  right  to  work.  They 
also  desired  that  the  elections  be  postponed  in  order  that 
there  might  be  time  to  republicanize  the  country.  Within 
the  government  their  spokesmen  on  the  postponement  of  the 
elections  were  the  radicals  and  the  socialists,  but  as  the 
moderate  members  remained  firm,  no  action  was  taken. 

The  conserv^atives,  on  the  other  hand,  were  particularly 
aroused  by  the  democratization  of  the  National  Guard. 
Under  Louis  Philippe  the  National  Guard  had  been  com- 
posed solely  of  the  bourgeoisie;  the  provisional  government 
opened  the  ranks  to  all  citizens  and  urged  them  to  join. 
Ledru  considered  this  a  most  important  part  of  his  work: 
"  In  a  few  days  I  armed  and  equipped  the  National  Guard 
of  Paris  and  tried,  though  less  successfully  than  I  wished, 
to  have  that  of  the  departments  armed,  for  I  was  persuaded 
that  a  gun  under  discipline  was  an  instrument  of  order  be- 
cause it  was  the  symbol  of  the  dignity  of  the  citizen."  ^  All 
officers  except  the  highest  were  to  receive  their  commissions 
through  the  ballot  box.  Ledru  was  opposed  to  all  privileges 
in  the  National  Guard.  The  law  and  medical  students 
asked  a  special  battalion  of  the  colleges,  but  Ledru  refused 
this  absolutely.     "  Join  the  ranks  if  you  wish  to  serve  the 

'Speech  of  May  6,  1848  in  Discours  politiques  2:24-5. 
120  [274 


275]  '^^^  SEVENTEENTH  OF  MARCH  121 

republic,"  he  told  them/  On  March  14  Ledru  obtained  the 
consent  of  the  provisional  government  to  the  abolition  of 
the  existing  special  companies,  including  some  distinguished 
by  wearing  bear-skin  caps.  "  There  were  several  reasons 
for  that,"  said  Ledru  later.  "  First  the  members  of  these 
companies  were  considered,  rightly  or  wrongly,  as  aristo- 
crats, and  we  feared  that  in  case  of  a  popular  tumult  they 
would  not  fire.  Secondly  as  these  companies  were  scattered, 
it  was  hard  to  collect  them."  * 

On  the  evening  of  March  15a  numerous  deputation  from 
the  elite  companies  came  to  the  ministry  of  the  interior. 
Ledru-Rollin  refused  to  receive  it.  A  few  delegates  were 
admitted  to  the  office  of  the  chief  of  cabinet.  They  ex- 
posed their  grievances  with  great  arrogance  and  received  a 
severe  lecture  in  return  from  Elias  Regnault,  who  told  them 
that  privileged  companies  formed  eighteen  years  before  could 
not  survive  the  monarchy  of  eighteen  years  standing.  The 
delegates  retired,  threatening  a  demonstration  for  the  mor- 
row. When  Ledru-Rollin  was  informed  of  this  threat  he 
said,  "  If  they  have  a  demonstration  tomorrow,  I  promise 
them  one  for  the  day  after  tomorrow  that  will  serve  as  a 
lesson."  ^ 

The  delegation  then  proceeded  to  the  ministry  of  foreign 
affairs.  Lamartine  rejected  the  demand  to  preserve  special 
companies  but  added  some  remarks  that  constituted  a  partial 
disavowal  of  the  circulars :  "  The  provisional  government 
has  charged  no  one  to  speak  in  the  name  of  the  nation,  and 
above  all  to   speak  a  language  superior  to  the  laws.  ...  In 

^Ulbach  in  Revue  Bleue  25:263;  Ulbach  41-2.  For  decrees  on  the 
National  Guard  see  Moniteur  for  1848  March  9,  11,  14,  16,  17,  28,  April 
2,  3.  10. 

*  Trial  of  Barbes,  Moniteur  for  1849,  p.  947. 

*  Regnault  21 1-3;  Barrot  2:107-9. 


1 22    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [276 

a  few  days  the  provisional  government  itself  will  speak  and 
will  explain  whatever  in  the  wording  and  not  in  the  intention 
of  the  circulars  could  wound  or  alarm  the  liberty  and  con- 
science of  the  country.  .  .  .  This  thought  is  not  mine 
alone ;  it  is  held  by  the  entire  government  and  by  the  minister 
of  the  interior  himself."  ^ 

This  speech  w^as  hailed  with  joy  by  the  conservatives. 
Normanby  felt  sure  that  it  would  necessitate  the  resignation 
of  Ledru-Rollin,  and  the  rumor  of  the  minister  of  the 
interior's  fall  caused  a  rise  on  the  stock  exchange."  The 
conservatives,  ever  ready  to  foment  trouble,  read  more 
moderation  into  the  speech  than  was  there,  just  as  they  had 
read  more  radicalism  into  the  circular  of  March  12  than  was 
in  it.  Lamartine  had  merely  stated  that  the  intentions  at- 
tributed to  the  minister  of  the  interior  were  neither  those 
of  the  government  nor  of  the  minister  himself.  The  speech 
did  not  mean  that  the  government  would  tolerate  no  further 
revolutionary  propaganda.  It  followed  out  the  plan  suggested 
by  Ledru  himself  at  a  council  meeting. 

On  March  16  the  demonstration  occurred  as  promised.  It 
is  called  the  manifestation  of  the  bear-skin  caps  (bonnets  d, 
poil).  The  abolition  of  the  special  companies  was  the  pre- 
text; the  expulsion  of  Ledru  from  the  government  was  the 
real  object  aimed  at.  An  officer  of  the  National  Guard 
frankly  admitted  this  to  Weill,  an  editor  of  the  Pressed 
A  police  report  asserted  that  those  who  were  to  take  part  in 
the  manifestation  wished  to  force  Ledru  to  resign.*  Most 
of  the  conservatives,  however,  paraded  as  a  vague  protest 

^Moniteur  for  1848,  p.  619;  Regnault  208-9;  Stern  214-6.  This  was  the 
second  delegation  of  the  National  Guard  that  Lamartine  addressed 
that  day. 

^Normanby  1:232;  Reforme  March  15,  18;  Consiitntionnd  March  15. 
Limoges  threatened  an  uprising  if  the  rumor  was  confirmed. 

'Weill  1 19. 

*  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  2:218. 


277]  -^-^^  SEVENTEENTH  OF  MARCH  123 

against  the  radicals.  Typical  was  the  essayist,  Maxime  Du 
Camp,  who  later  said :  "  I  took  part  in  the  expedition.  I 
don't  know  why,  for  I  was  just  a  simple  rifleman  and  had 
no  right  to  a  bear-skin  cap.  .  .  .  For  us  M.  Ledru-RoUin, 
who  wished  to  establish  the  terror  without  the  guillotine, 
was  the  representative  of  a  dictatorial  policy  which  only  the 
influence  of  M.  de  Lamartine  could  hold  in  check."  ^ 

On  March  16  Ledru  drove  to  the  city  hall  with  Frangois 
Arago.  The  demonstrators  shouted  Down  with  Ledru- 
Rollin  and  threatened  the  minister  of  the  interior,  but 
Arago  warned  them  of  the  dangers  into  which  they  were 
running.  "  Don't  you  know  that  Foulon  was  killed  on 
this  spot  and  that  you  may  cause  a  similar  disaster?  "  he  said. 
By  the  time  Arago  and  Ledru  reached  the  Hotel  de  Ville 
cries  of  Hurrah  for  Ledru-Rollin  had  succeeded  to  the  con- 
trary cries.  All  together  about  nine  or  ten  thousand  men 
had  collected  for  the  parade.  Most  were  dispersed  by  the 
crowds  of  workingmen  before  they  reached  their  destina- 
tion. A  delegation  penetrated  to  the  square  in  front  of  the 
city  hall  and  was  ungraciously  received  by  the  provisional 
government.  Marrast  declared  that  the  entire  government 
approved  the  dissolution  of  the  bear-skin  cap  brigades. 
Arago  made  the  same  statement  and  added :  "  Tomorrow 
we  shall  have  another  manifestation  in  answer  to  that  of  the 
National  Guard,  a  manifestation  of  the  working  classes." 
The  deputation  departed  declaring  that  it  relied  on  the  wis- 
dom of  the  provisional  government."  The  demonstration 
had  been  an  utter  failure  thanks  to  the  firmness  of  the  mod- 
erates in  the  council  and  the  supi)ort  of  the  government  by 

'Du  Camp  133-7.     Cf.  Bondc  52-3;  Normanby  1:234-6. 

'Arago  in  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  1:225;  Ledru  at  Barbes  trial  in 
Refonnc,  March  21,  1849;  Moniicur  for  1848,  p.  627;  Stern  2:216-9; 
Rcgnault  213-224;  Chercst :  Marie  155-6;  Dclvau  399;  Garnicr-Pages 
6:  207-213. 


124   i-EDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [278 

the  proletariat  gathered  in  the  square.  It  was  even  worse 
than  a  failure;  it  was  a  joke,  and  all  France  laughed  at  the 
parade  of  the  bear-skin  caps. 

The  government  held  its  usual  afternoon  meeting.  It  is- 
sued a  manifesto  in  which  it  declared  that  the  abolition  of 
special  companies  was  the  work  of  the  entire  government.^ 
This  was  clear  sailing,  but  a  tempest  raged  when  the  vital 
question  of  postponing  the  elections  came  up.  Louis  Blanc 
declared  that  France  was  not  yet  republicanized  by  educa- 
tion. Cremieux  asserted  that  there  were  not  enough  old- 
line  republicans  and  that  therefore  it  was  all-important  to 
keep  the  good-will  of  the  former  dynastic  liberals.  Marie 
spoke  in  favor  of  immediate  elections,  but  was  willing  to 
listen  to  arguments.  Ledru  said  that  he  had  asked  the  com- 
missioners to  inform  him  as  to  how  a  postponement  would 
affect  their  departments  and  that  he  wished  to  await  these 
reports.  Lamartine  urged  the  necessity  of  ending  the  pro- 
visional regime.  Louis  Blanc  again  insisted  on  the  danger 
of  the  republic  falling  into  the  hands  of  its  enemies  in  case 
the  elections  were  held  as  planned.  Garnier-Pages  wisely 
declared  that  it  was  best  to  hold  the  elections  during  the 
early  period  of  enthusiasm;  to  wait  meant  to  let  obstacles 
arise.  Ledru  did  not  find  Garnier-Pages's  reasoning  de- 
cisive; he  thought  time  was  needed  to  prove  to  Frenchmen 
that  "  the  republic  is  their  right,  their  law,  their  interest, 
their  very  life."  Louis  Blanc  suggested  a  month's  post- 
ponent.  "  Then  we  retire,"  declared  Lamartine  and  Du- 
pont.  No  decision  on  the  matter  was  reached  that  day. 
The  government  merely  approved  a  proclamation  in  which 
its  good-will  and  the  beauties  of  popular  sovereignty  were 
extolled.^ 

^Moniteur  for  1848,  p.  626. 

'Garnier-Pages   6:420-9;    Lamartine   2:132-4;    Blanc    1:309;    Arago 
in  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  i :  225. 


279]  -^^^  SEVENTEENTH  OF  MARCH  125 

It  is  commonly  stated  that  the  great  workingmen's  de- 
monstration of  the  following  day,  March  17,  was  a  reply  to 
the  bear-skin  cap  fiasco.  This  is  not  exact.  The  parade 
of  the  workingmen  had  been  planned  long  beforehand.  On 
March  13  it  had  been  proposed  at  Blanqui's  club.^  That 
it  received  an  immense  impetus  by  the  abortive  manifesta- 
tion of  the  previous  day  is  indubitable.  The  desire  of  the 
majority  of  those  who  paraded  was  probably  to  express 
confidence  in  the  government  and  particularly  in  its  radical- 
socialist  minority,  and  to  impress  on  the  council  the  strength 
of  the  sentiment  in  favor  of  postponing  the  elections,  of 
sending  the  army  away  from  Paris,  and  of  creating  a 
ministry  of  labor.  Carteret,  director  of  the  police  depart- 
ment, asserts  the  pacific  character  of  the  paraders,  and  even 
Barrot  admits  that  there  was  as  yet  no  idea  of  modifying  the 
government  by  the  elimination  of  the  National  group."  That 
Caussidiere  and  Louis  Blanc,  if  they  did  not  aid  directly  in 
the  organization  of  the  demonstration,  plainly  indicated  their 
approval  beforehand  to  the  club-leaders,  seems  unquestionable. 
That  Ledru  approved  of  the  demonstration  is  also  clear,  but 
that  he  aided  in  its  organization  or  encouraged  it  before- 
hand is  doubtful.  Carteret  probably  judged  correctly  when 
he  said :  "  The  minister  knew  nothing  of  the  demonstration. 
He  took  no  preventative  measures;  neither  did  I.  The 
movement  was  irresistible."  * 

At  noon  on  March  17  all  eleven  members  of  the  pro- 
visional government  collected  at  the  Hotel  de  Ville.  The 
procession  of  workingmen  soon  arrived  from  the  Place  de  la 

*Wassermann  65-9. 

*Quentin-P>auchart  Report  1:249;  Barrot  2:110-2.  Wassermann 
70-6  declares  that  Blanqui  was  not  plotting  a  change  in  the  government, 
but  that  his  partisans  may  have  had  hostile  intentions.  Cf.  Longepied 
28.    Only  Lefrangais  32  insists  on  the  desire  to  eliminate  the  moderates. 

•Quentin-Bauchart  Report  1:249.  Cf.  Ledru  at  Barbes  trial  in 
Rcformc,  March  21,  1&49. 


126   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [280 

Revolution,  and  a  deputation  of  about  forty  prominent  ex- 
treme revolutionists  was  allowed  to  see  the  government. 
One  of  its  members  read  a  petition  asking  the  postpone- 
ment till  April  5  of  the  National  Guard  elections  and  till 
May  31  of  the  general  elections.  Louis  Blanc  replied  that 
the  government  would  deliberate  on  these  questions  but 
could  not  decide  them  under  the  pressure  of  force.  Im- 
mediately both  Sobrier  and  Cabet  expressed  their  confidence 
in  the  government.  Ledru  said  that  the  desires  of  the  de- 
putation would  be  duly  weighed  as  expressing  the  will  of 
Paris  but  that  he  was  awaiting  reports  from  the  commis- 
sioners to  learn  the  wishes  of  the  provinces  and  to  discover 
whether  a  postponement  would  be  really  beneficial  to  the 
establishment  of  a  republic.  A  Blanquist  refused  to  retire 
until  the  demands  were  granted.  But  Louis  Blanc,  this 
time  in  an  angry  tone,  refused  to  deliberate  under  pressure. 
He  was  seconded  by  Sobrier,  Cabet,  Raspail,  and  Barbes. 
Lamartine  closed  the  interview  with  a  long  and  eloquent 
plea  for  harmony  and  confidence.  Then  the  provisional 
government  was  obliged  to  appear  on  a  balcony  and  be 
cheered  by  the  assembled  throng.  Again  Louis  Blanc  made 
a  brief  address.^  Ledru  later  described  the  demonstration 
of  March  17  as  follows:  "  If  I  were  back  at  that  time,  I 
would  act  as  I  did  act.  .  .  .  The  delegation  spoke  in  a  very 
suitable  and  very  restrained  language.  ...  I  replied  first; 
Louis  Blanc  then  made  a  superb  speech;  Lamartine  also 
spoke,  but  it  w^as  rather  a  discourse  of  tempered  eloquence 
which  was  very  fine  like  all  the  orations  of  M.  de  Lamartine 
but  which  did  not  bear  on  the  subject.' 

^Moniteur  for  1848,  p.  62;2;  Constitutionnel,  March  18;  Lamartine 
2:  134-149;  Gamier-Pages  6:429-447;  Regnaiilt  234-9;  Stem  2:219-232; 
Parent  de  Rosan  174. 

2  Barbes  trial  in  Rcfonne,  March  21,  1849.  About  three  o'clock 
Lamartine  wrote  to  his  w-ife :  "  Everj-thing  is  going  splendidly.  Ledru- 
Rollin  is  conducting  himself  very  well.  The  people  are  passing  quietly." 
— Journees  Illustrees  86. 


28i]  THE  SEVENTEENTH  OF  MARCH  127 

The  crowd  filed  past  the  city  hall  for  hours.  Some  of 
the  paraders  carried  off  Louis  Blanc.  A  larger  section, 
which  may  have  numbered  ten  thousand,  accompanied 
Ledru-Rollin  to  his  ministry.  There  Ledru  addressed  those 
assembled  as  follows : 

You  demand  the  withdrawal  of  the  army!  Doubtless  when 
the  army  was  the  instrument  of  tyranny,  it  merited  the  hatred 
of  honorable  men.  .  .  .  None  of  you  doubt  the  bravery  of 
our  soldiers  ....  but  during  the  February  Days  the  army 
did  not  want  to  fight.  .  .  .  The  army,  my  friends,  is  the  people 
....  Would  you  expel  your  brothers?  ...  It  is  the  army 
which  in  days  of  humiliation  guarded  Algeria.  .  .  .  Cease 
your  miserable  mistrust  ....  and  cry  with  me  Three  Cheers 
for  the  Army! 

And  the  volatile  crowd  departed  peacefully,  shouting  Hurrah 
for  tlie  Army!  Hurrah  for  the  Republic!  Hurrah  for 
Ledru-Rollin!^ 

In  the  evening  the  provisional  government  met  again  and 
after  long  deliberation  decided  by  seven  to  three  not  to 
postpone  the  elections  of  the  National  Guard.  The  other 
matters  were  not  even  discussed.  Louis  Blanc  and  Albert 
offered  their  resignations  but  withdrew  them  at  the  urgent 
solicitation  of  Ledru-Rollin  who  had  voted  with  them." 

For  Ledru-Rollin  March  17  was  a  glorious  day.  As  the 
Reforme  said :  "  The  applause  of  the  people  has  amply  re- 
paid him  for  the  calumnies  and  the  blind  rage  of  the 
counter-revolutionists."  ^  Ledru  had  shown  to  the  moder- 
ates his  power  over  the  mob.  He  had  shown  the  extremists 
that  they  could  not  impose  their  desires  on  him,  for  Cabet, 
Sobrier,  Barbes,  even  Raspail  had  supported  him  against  an 

^Moniteur  for  1848,  p.  62,:^;  Delvau  408. 
"Garnier- Pages  6:446. 
^Reforme,  March  18. 


1 28   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [282 

importunate  Blanquist.  The  mob  could  not  dictate  to  the 
council.  Its  three  demands  were  laid  aside.  Ledru  almost 
persuaded  them  to  give  up  one  of  them,  the  removal  from 
Paris  of  the  army.  The  postponement  of  the  elections  in 
the  National  Guard  was  refused;  that  of  those  to  the  As- 
sembly was  not  voted  until  later.  But  the  proletariat  had 
achieved  part  of  its  desire;  the  influence  of  the  minority  in 
the  council  was  undoubtedly  increased  and  this  became  ap- 
parent in  the  republicanization  of  the  commissioners. 
Ledru-Rollin  had  also  slightly  diminished  the  ill-will  of  the 
conservatives.  Even  Normanby  gave  him  grudging  praise 
for  his  speech  at  the  ministry.^  For  the  republic,  however, 
there  was  one  bad  sign.  The  most  revolutionary  section  of 
the  population,  the  followers  of  Blanqui,  had  indicated  their 
desire  to  overthrow  the  government.  We  shall  see  this  idea 
spread. 

Within  the  provisional  government  the  demonstration  of 
March  17  produced  certain  effects.  On  the  one  hand 
Cremieux,  Lamartine,  and  even  Garnier-Pages,  feeling  the 
need  of  conciliating  the  controller  of  the  mob,  voted  with 
Ledru  more  frequently.'  But  at  the  same  time  the  moder- 
ates tried  to  build  up  a  counter-organization.  Lamartine 
was  ready  to  work  with  Ledru,  but  he  wished  to  have  a 
force  at  hand  in  case  their  entente  did  not  succeed.  He  ar- 
ranged with  Negrier.  commander  at  Lille,  to  attack  Paris 
with  his  army  of  twenty-five  thousand  soldiers  in  case  the 
radicals  should  seize  the  capital.  The  support  of  Changar- 
nier,  Bedeau,  and  other  prominent  generals  was  also  secured. 
Marie  bent  all  his  efforts  to  obtain  the  allegiance  of  the 
National  Workshops.     Marrast  counted  on  the  support  of 

*  Normanby  1:243. 

*  Weill  124  claims :  "  Lamartine  assured  me  that  Ledru-Rollin  was  in 
complete  accord  with  him,  that  the  only  dissentient  was  Louis  Blanc." 
Cf.  Thomas  98 ;  Stern  2 :  230-1 ;  Times,  March  27,  1848. 


283]  THE  SEVENTEENTH  OF  MARCH  129 

the  National  Guard.  The  moderates  also  reUed  on  the 
militia  under  General  Duvivier,  angry  at  the  delay  in  the 
equipment  of  his  troops,  a  delay  which  Duvivier  attributed 
to  the  wilful  interposition  of  the  minister  of  the  interior.^ 
Ledru  was  emboldened  by  the  manifestation  of  March 
17  to  make  a  change  in  the  personnel  of  the  commissioners. 
Already  in  the  circular  of  IMarch  12  republicanization  had 
been  more  emphasized  than  conciliation.  The  storm  of 
abuse  which  had  followed  the  publication  of  that  document 
made  the  minister  of  the  interior  increasingly  doubtful  of 
the  liberals  of  the  former  dynastic  left.  For  Ledru  even 
the  National  group  was  too  luke-warm.  More  than  ever 
he  felt  the  need  that  those  whom  he  considered  the  true  re- 
publicans, the  radicals,  should  control  the  coming  assembly, 
and  with  that  purpose  in  view  he  tried  to  add  a  more  active 
element  to  the  personnel  of  his  subordinates.  The  change 
was  made  in  two  ways.  First  certain  dynastic  liberals  were 
superseded  or  associated  with  radicals.  Secondly  commis- 
sioners-general were  appointed  whose  duty  was  to  busy  them- 
selves with  propaganda  and  surveillance  rather  than  with 
details  of  local  administration,  the  latter  being  left  to  the 
ordinary  commissioners,  their  subordinates.^  Although  the 
new  officials  were  not  appointed  until  after  the  circular  of 
March  12,  this  circular  was  really  addressed  to  them.  Ledru 
had  made  a  great  mistake.  First  he  had  entrusted  the  duty 
of  propaganda  to  ordinary  commissioners,  although  twenty- 
two  of  them  were  dynastic  liberals  and  therefore  evidently 
incapable  of  republicanizing  a  country;  then  almost  im- 
mediately he  took  away  from  them  this  duty  and  gave  it  to 
the  new  officials.  Such  action  could  not  fail  to  irritate 
those  to  whom  the  duty  was  originally  assigned. 

'Regnault  260.  The  conservatives  speak  of  Ledru's  increased  feeling 
of  importance;  see  Barrot  2:  115;  Normanby  1:247-8;  Thomas  99-100. 

'Some  times  an  ordinary  commissioner  was  appointed  commissioner- 
general  of  several  departments. 


I'.O   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [284 

At  the  beginning  of  April  in  the  midst  of  the  electoral 
campaign,  there  were  twenty-four  commissioners-general, 
ten  of  them  being  taken  from  the  original  commissioners; 
under  their  rule  were  sixty  departments.  In  the  remaining 
twenty-four  departments  six  had  received  an  additional,  four 
a  new  commissioner/  At  this  time  we  find  forty-eight  de- 
partments under  a  radical  commissioner-general  and  sixteen 
others  with  at  least  one  radical  commissioner.  Thus  sixty- 
four  departments  were  in  April  under  the  at  least  partial 
control  of  the  radicals.  On  the  other  hand,  only  five  were 
under  the  full  control  and  four  under  the  partial  control 
of  the  dynastic  liberals. 

The  policy  of  conciliation  was  replaced  by  a  vigorous 
policy  of  republicanization.  But  the  result  was  unsatisfactory. 
The  commissioners-general  did  little  to  spread  democratic 
propaganda.  On  the  contrary,  the  cliange  in  system  streng- 
thened the  reactionary  feeling,  for  the  new  appointees  were 
as  a  whole  unpopular.  Was  this  unpopularity  merited? 
From  the  outset  the  commissioners-general  were  detested  as 
proconsuls.  The  old  incumbents  disliked  them  as  superiors ; 
the  population,  as  tyrants.  Inevitably  there  were  clashes  be- 
tween the  old  and  the  new  officials.  Some  of  the  outbreaks 
were  the  result  of  Ledru's  revolutionizing  policy,  such  as 
the  riots  at  Bordeaux,  Bourg,  and  Perigueux.-  Other  dis- 
turbances were  due  to  the  popularity  of  the  old  commis- 
sioner or  the  unpopularity  of  the  new  one;  such  was  the 
case  at  Marseilles,  Besangon,  and  Troyes,  and  in  the  de- 
partments of  Aveyron,  Drome,  Somme,  and  Yonne.^     As 

^In  two  others  to  which  a  new  commissioner  was  sent  the  original 
appointee  had  to  be  reappointed  after  trouble  had  broken  out. 

^For  details  on  Bourg  see  Constitutionncl,  April  10,  1848.  For  details 
on  Bordeaux  see  ibid.,  March  24. 

^For  details  on  the  Drome  and  for  troubles  of  Ledru  later  in  life 
due  to  his  removal  of  the  new  commissioner  when  he  discovered  that 
that  official  had  a  bad  m.oral  reputation  see  Caiman :  Lcdru-RoUin  apres 
1848,  pp.  149-157. 


285]  THE  SEVENTEENTH  OF  MARCH  131 

a  matter  of  fact,  in  only  fifteen  departments  did  active  dis- 
satisfaction show  itself;  there  was  a  feeling  against  the 
new  commissioners  in  general  rather  than  against  the  single 
one  with  whom  the  department  came  into  contact.  Haury 
says: 

The  new  commissioners  were  just  as  well  acquainted  as 
were  the  first  ones  with  the  provinces  where  they  exercised 
their  authority;  apparently  Ledru-RoUin  insisted  that  the 
commissioner  should  have  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  popu- 
lation under  his  administration.  Ledru-Rollin's  choices  were 
called  deplorable;  they  were  so  only  for  those  who  did  not 
wish  a  radical  administration,  for  most  of  the  commissioners 
were  elected  to  the  legislature  by  the  department  concerned. 
The  acts  of  the  commissioners,  called  revolting,  did  not  revolt 
the  population  except  in  about  ten  departments.  But  some 
imprudent  choices  which  the  minister  of  the  interior  himself 
had  to  revoke,  some  injurious  acts  of  extreme  intolerance 
gave  almost  daily  opportunities  for  attacks.  If  these  circum- 
stances explain  the  impression  on  people  predetermined  against 
Ledru-RolHn,  his  acts,  and  his  agents,  they  do  not  justify  the 
judgment  they  have  imposed  on  history.^ 

Doubtless  the  commissioners  intervened  in  the  elections, 
but  rather  as  republican  leaders  than  as  commissioners,  and 
probably  less  than  did  the  officials  of  Leon  Faucher  a  3^ear 
later.  Their  influence  consisted  chiefly  of  harmless  propa- 
ganda. Many  of  them  were  elected  to  the  Assembly  and 
none  of  these  elections  were  invalidated.  Their  position  as 
ofiicials  was  for  the  commissioners  a  source  of  weakness 
rather  than  of  strength." 

^Revolution  frangaise  57:469.  Haury  has  again  been  my  authority 
on  the  work  of  the  commissioners, 

^The  hostile  Ducos  commission  admitted  their  absolute  probity  and 
censured  only  extraordinary  election  expenses  in  thirteen  of  the 
departments. 


1 32    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [286 

Ledru  defends  his  subordinates  thus : 

To  judge  the  question  we  must  consider  the  situation  at  that 
time  ....  and  we  shall  understand  that  on  the  morrow  of 
the  revolution,  surrounded  by  victors  who  had  come  from  the 
barricades,  I  could  confide  the  defense  of  liberty  to  no  other 
hands  but  those  of  the  successful  republicans.  Full  of  ardour, 
of  devotion,  of  civic  faith,  they  could  fill  the  country  with 
the  idea  the  triumph  of  which  they  had  brought  about. 
Doubtless  some  of  them  were  not  administrators ;  who  will 
deny  it?  That  is  not  the  question.  Soldiers  were  needed  to 
organize  and  extend  the  victory,  above  all  to  make  it  peaceful 
and  durable.  That  faults  were  committed  is  possible.  When 
I  learned  of  them,  I  did  not  hesitate  to  order  their  correction. 
But  let  any  one  cite  to  me  in  this  great  and  rapid  movement  a 
single  serious  attack  on  the  rights  of  citizens  by  these  courage- 
ous and  firm  men  whom  people  have  dared  to  call  pro-consuls  I 
The  people  expressed  their  opinion  by  casting  their  ballots 
for  the  great  number  of  them  that  now  sit  in  the  legislature.^ 

Some  of  the  commissioners  undoubtedly  pushed  their 
own  candidacy  too  vigorously.  On  ]\Iarch  29  Louis  Blanc 
explained  with  regret  how  such  officials  injured  the  republic 
and  compromised  its  authority.  Ledru-Rollin  replied  with 
vivacity  that  the  accusations  w^re  much  exaggerated,  that 
he  had  dismissed  the  one  or  two  commissioners  who  had 
abused  their  position,  and  that  the  sending  out  of  the  com- 
missioners-general w^ould  end  further  procedure  of  this  sort. 
On  April  i  the  discussion  was  renew^ed  and  the  government 
determined  that  the  commissioners  should  be  warned  in  a 
special  circular  against  pushing  their  own  candidacy.  Note 
that  the  chief  promoter  of  this  suggestion  was  Louis  Blanc, 
a  socialist,  the  most  advanced  member  of  the  provisional 
government.^ 

^Speech  of  May  6,  1848  in  Discours  politiques  2:  23. 
*  Garnier-Pages  8 :  220-3. 


2Sy]  THE  SEVENTEENTH  OF  MARCH  133 

Accordingly  on  April  5  Ledru-Rollin  read  to  his  col- 
leagues a  circular  in  which  this  subject  was  treated  together 
with  other  matters.  The  document  was  approved  with 
slight  modifications,  and  two  days  later  it  was  sent  to  the 
commissioners.  Ledru  had  learned  his  lesson  in  connection 
with  the  previous  circular  of  March  12  and  this  one  was 
written  in  a  conciliatory  tone. 

It  read  as  follows  : 

The  elections  are  approaching.  .  .  .  On  the  eve  of  this 
great  act  of  the  supreme  power  it  is  well  for  the  government 
born  of  the  revolution  ....  to  e,3cpose  its  ideas  for  a  last 
time.  .  .  .  On  the  elections  depend  the  future  of  the  country. 
Sincerely  republican,  they  open  up  a  brilliant  era  of  progress 
and  peace;  reactionary  or  even  doubtful,  they  condemn  it  to 
terrible  trials.  Your  constant  effort,  therefore,  has  been,  still 
should  be,  to  send  to  the  National  Assembly  honest  and 
courageous  men,  willing  to  sacrifice  their  lives  for  the  cause 
of  the  people.  .  .  .  The  government  cannot  reduce  its  func- 
tions to  merely  registering  the  results.  It  must  enlighten 
France  and  openly  labor  to  foil  the  intrigues  of  the  counter- 
revolution. Does  this  mean  that  we  are  to  imitate  the  faults 
of  those  whom  we  have  overthrown?  Far  from  it!  They 
were  dominated  by  corruption  and  falsehood;  we  wish  to 
make  truth  triumphant.  .  .  .  They  extinguished  independ- 
ence; we  give  it  full  play.  .  .  .  What  is  there  in  common  be- 
tween us?  .  .  .  Thus  deeply  and  peacefully  influenced,  the 
country  will  be  able  to  distinguish  those  who  merit  the  honour 
of  representing  it.  .  .  .  Can  those  who  accepted  the  old 
dynasty  and  its  treachery  be  elected  by  a  victorious  and  sov- 
ereign people?  .  .  .  Let  them  enter  the  ranks,  but  let  them 
not  aspire  to  command.  .  .  .  Liberty  is  the  exercise  of  all  the 
faculties  we  receive  from  nature,  governed  by  reason. 
Equality  is  the  participation  of  all  citizens  in  the  social  ad- 
vantages with  no  distinction  between  individuals  except  virtue 
and  ability.     Fraternity  is  the  law  of  love,  uniting  men  and 


1 34   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [288 

making  them  members  of  one  family.  From  these  three  prin- 
ciples result:  the  abolition  of  all  privileges,  the  reassessment 
of  taxes  in  proportion  to  fortune,  a  proportional  and  progres- 
sive tax  on  inheritances,  a  magistracy  freely  elected  and  the 
most  complete  development  possible  of  the  jury  system, 
military  service  weighing  equally  on  all,  free,  universal,  equal 
education,  the  instruments  of  labor  assured  to  all,  the  demo- 
cratic reconstruction  of  credit  and  industry,  voluntar}'-  asso- 
ciation everywhere  substituted  for  the  disordered  impulses  of 
selfishness.  ...  I  venture  to  believe,  citizen  commissioner, 
that  these  thoughts  are  yours.  ...  It  would  be  lowering 
your  mission  to  devote  yourselves  to  the  success  of  your  own 
candidacy.  .  .  .  But  if  your  citizens  come  to  you,  accept  their 
mandate  as  the  noblest  confirmation  of  your  work.  .  .  .  Re- 
member that  we  give  our  all  to  the  country,  which  expects 
great  things  from  us,  and  the  hour  has  arrived  to  rise  above 
mere  private  interest.^ 

This  circular  is  an  able  defense  and  a  clear  explanation 
of  the  influence  the  commissioners  were  to  exert  in  the  im- 
pending elections.  The  rejection  of  the  members  of  the 
dynastic  left  was  still  urged  as  emphatically  as  ever,  but 
pacific  means  were  indicated  to  achieve  this  result.  Two 
new  points  now  appeared.  A  definite  program  for  the  as- 
sembly was  enunciated,  and  the  commissioners  w^ere  urged 
not  to  press  their  own  candidacy.^  The  newspapers  all  ap- 
proved the  latter  idea,  but  the  conservatives  still  deplored  the 
exclusion  of  liberal  monarchists  and  were  greatly  surprised 
that  the  minister  of  the  interior  should  have  traced  a  com- 
plete plan  of  a  constitution  in  advance.  The  circular 
obtained  general  approval  but  had  little  effect. 

^Discours  politiques  2:16-21.  This  circular  was  supplemented  by 
eleven  further  decrees  or  details. — Moniteur  for  1848,  pp.  799,  835,  842, 
860,  865,  883,  887,  897,  910,  929. 

^The  Refonne  of  April  3  even  urged  that  the  commissioners  should 
not  present  themselves  in  their  own  departments. 


289]  THE  SEVENTEENTH  OF  MARCH  135 

Those  who  took  part  in  the  manifestation  of  March  17 
had  made  several  demands.  The  government  had  rejected 
a  postponement  of  the  elections  in  the  National  Guard.  It 
did  not  take  up  the  subject  of  the  postponement  of  the 
general  elections  to  the  Assembly  until  March  26.  Louis 
Blanc  and  Albert,  favorable  to  a  dictatorship  for  one  year, 
were  not  present,  being  occupied  at  the  Luxembourg,  but  had 
promised  their  adhesion  to  the  decision  of  the  majority. 
Ledru-Rollin  admitted  to  his  colleagues  that  he  had  been  mis- 
taken in  desiring  a  delay,  that  the  reports  from  the  commis- 
sioners convinced  him  that  the  elections  should  be  held  as 
soon  as  possible.  However,  he  declared,  the  details  of  ad- 
ministration in  preparing  for  universal  suffrage  were  so 
great  that  his  subordinates  could  not  have  their  work  com- 
pleted at  the  day  assigned.  These  observations  were  con- 
clusive, and  Cremieux  proposed  a  delay  of  two  weeks. 
Someone  objected  that  this  would  make  elections  fall  on 
April  23,  Easter  Sunday.  "  Day  of  social  regeneration," 
replied  a  member  of  the  government,  and  April  23  was  ad- 
opted. ]\Iay  4  was  appointed  for  the  meeting  of  the  as- 
sembly.'- 

The  account  just  given  should  dissipate  two  myths.  The 
postponement  of  the  election  was  not  caused  by  the  mani- 
festation of  March  17."  It  was  not  imposed  by  the  minority 
on  the  majority.  It  was  passed  in  universal  agreement,  due 
to  absolute  necessity,  in  the  absence  of  the  only  two  members 
who  desired  the  postponement  for  its  own  sake. 

Only  the  socialists  desired  a  ministry  of  labor,  and  the 
government  never  reconsidered  its  refusal.  Even  Louis 
Blanc  and  Albert  joined  their  colleagues  in  opposing  the 
other  demand  of  the  manifestation  of  March  17,  the  removal 

'Gamier-Pages  7:68-9;  Lamartiiic  2:  190-1 ;  Monitcur  for  1848,  p.  693. 
'The  government  pointed  this  out  in  a  special  decree. — Monitcur  for 
1848,  p.  693. 


I  -5   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [290 

of  the  army  from  Paris.  Five  days  after  that  demonstra- 
tion, on  March  22,  Ledru  had  an  opportunity  to  defend  the 
army.  A  Hberty  tree  was  to  be  planted  in  front  of  the 
MiHtary  School,  and  the  minister  of  the  interior  was  asked 
to  speak.  Recalling  the  federation  of  1790,  he  announced 
that  the  mission  of  France  was  to  spread  liberty.  Then  he 
turned  toward  the  Ecole  Militaire  and  lauded  the  bravery 
and  patriotism  of  the  soldiers.  He  protested  against  the 
mistrust  of  the  army :  "  The  army  has  no  need  of  being 
amnestied.  The  army,  you  are  the  army.  Between  you  and 
the  army  let  there  be  complete  fraternity."  ^ 

The  crowd  was  swept  away  with  enthusiasm.  A  veteran 
seized  the  hand  of  the  minister  without  being  able  to  say  a 
word.  A  witness  of  the  scene,  not  often  friendly  to  the 
minister,  writes :  "  No  orator  since  the  first  republic  had  pro- 
duced by  his  gestures,  by  his  attitude,  by  the  animation  of 
his  features,  by  all  his  figure,  a  more  truly  popular  appeal. 
M.  Ledru-Rollin  is  a  demogogue,  he  has  all  the  correspond- 
ing faults  and  virtues :  muscular  force,  vibrating  chest,  ex- 
altation, anger,  exaggeration.  He  produced  on  the  surg- 
ing masses  an  enormous  effect."  ^ 

^Discours  politiques  2:  13-5. 

^Journees  Illustrees  88-9;  Cf.  Moniteur  for  1848,  pp.  662-3;  Constitu- 
tionnel,  Liberie,  March  23;  Commune  de  Paris,  March  24;  Bulletin 
de  la  Repuhlique,  no.  7. 


CHAPTER  IX 

Clubs  and  Cabals 

After  the  revolution  clubs  sprang  up  like  mushrooms, 
for  everybody  wished  to  have  a  place  to  expose  his  views. 
There  were  philosophical,  literary,  social  clubs,  women's 
clubs,  German,  Irish,  Polish  clubs,  but  above  all  political 
clubs.  There  were  legitimist,  Bonapartist,  Orleanist,  mod- 
erate, radical,  socialist,  ultra-revolutionary  clubs.  The 
widest  influence  was  achieved  by  the  last  named;  in  fact  when 
the  clubs  are  mentioned  in  connection  with  1848,  the 
ultra-revolutionary  societies  are  meant.  Ledru-Rollin  was 
not  affiliated  with  any  club,^  but  many  supported  his 
policy.  The  Central  Republican  Society  announced  its  in- 
tention of  supporting  Ledru.  Grandmesnil's  Club  of 
Rights  and  Duties  was  supposed  to  have  as  object  the  dic- 
tatorship of  the  minister  of  the  interior.  The  Club  of  the 
R^evolution,  Barbes's  club,  encouraged  Ledru  to  appoint 
more  radical  commissioners.^  With  one  club  the  minister 
had  close  relations;  the  Club  des  Clubs,  according  to  Raspail, 
"  belonged  to  Ledru-Rollin."  '  This  was  a  central  associa- 
tion composed  of  delegates  from  most  of  the  radical  and 
ultra-revolutionary    societies.     Huber    was    president,    and 

'Ledru  in  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  1:311.  Wassermann  20  denies 
that  he  was  a  member  of  the  Qub  of  the  Revolution.  Ledru  in  a  letter 
to  the  Patrie  denied  the  accusation  that  he  belonged  to  the  Club  of 
Militant  Democracy. — Monitnir  for  j8.}8,  p.  1449. 

*Regnault  180;  Menand  75;  Stern  2:  168;  Gamier-Pages  7:77-8. 

'Barbes  trial,  Monitcur  for  /<S'-/9,  p.  1219. 

291]  137 


I  -^8   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [292 

most  of  the  club  leaders  except  Raspail  and  Blanqui  were 
members.  Longepied,  Laugier,  the  nephew  of  Frangois 
Araeo.  and  Grandmesnil  were  in  constant  communication 
with  Ledru  and  through  them  the  club  was  officially  supplied 
with  funds  to  send  out  delegates  who  were  to  preach  re- 
publicanism in  the  provinces.  Lamartine  through  Sobrier, 
Caussidiere  through  Vilain,  were  also  in  communication 
with  the  Club  des  Clubs. ^ 

Besides  Longepied  and  his  friends  Ledru  was  on  amicable 
terms  with  several  of  the  club  leaders,  notably  Barbes  who 
frequently  dropped  in  at  the  ministry.  Sobrier  and  Vilain 
each  visited  him  twice ;  Ledru  found  their  opinions  very  ad- 
vanced, but  he  believed  that  they  were  ready  to  defend  the 
government. 

Originally  Sobrier  had  acted  with  Caussidiere  in  the  pre- 
fecture of  police,  but  he  soon  retired  to  a  neighboring  house 
where  he  organized  an  unofficial  force  of  patriots.  He 
acted  under  the  aegis  of  Caussidiere,  and  on  April  15  the 
latter  turned  over  to  him  a  thousand  rifles  and  three  thousand 
cartridges  which  the  minister  of  the  interior  had  obtained 
from  the  minister  of  war.  It  was  claimed  that  Ledru  gave 
these  to  him  in  order  to  have  an  armed  force  with  which  to 
overthrow  the  government  on  the  sixteenth.  It  is  clear, 
however,  that  neither  the  minister  nor  the  chief  of  cabinet, 
who  carried  out  his  orders,  knew  the  destination  of  the 
rifles."     Caussidiere  protected  Sobrier,  and  Lamartine  tried 

^Longepied,  passim;  Stern  2:168-9;  Regnault  191;  Ducos  report  in 
Moniteur  for  1849,  p.  1553.  For  the  work  of  the  delegates  of  the  club 
see  infra,  pp.  162-5.  On  May  15,  we  shall  see  how  the  members  of  the 
Club  des  Clubs  aided  Ledru. 

^Regnault  286-7.  He  claims,  however  that  Ledru  tolerated  Sobrier's 
"contraband  authority," — ibid.,  252.  See  absolute  vindication  of  Ledru 
by  Portalis  and  Arago  in  speeches  on  Augvist  25,  1848. — Moniteu-r, 
pp.  2157-8. 


2Q3]  CLUBS  AND  CABALS  1 39 

to  act  on  the  clubs  through  him,  but  Ledru  had  no  connec- 
tion with  him.  The  minister  of  the  interior  says :  "  M.  de 
Lamartine  can  give  more  information  than  I;  all  I  know  is 
that  Sobrier  one  day  came  to  the  ministry  of  the  interior. 
He  told  me  that,  although  the  government  made  mistakes, 
the  duty  of  every  republican  was  to  uphold  it  against  the 
royalist  reaction.  ...  I  believed  Caussidiere  gave  him  a 
sort  of  power  to  survey  the  Tuileries  quarter."  ^  Again 
Ledru  states :  "  I  saw  Sobrier  twice  and  did  not  distrust 
him.  I  was,  however,  surprised  to  hear  that  he  had  received 
arms  from  the  prefect  of  police.  One  day  Sobrier  was  pre- 
sented to  me.  I  knew  him  no  better  than  many  men  of  the 
same  type.  I  stood  quite  alone;  I  did  not  belong  to  any 
society  secret  or  public,  having  always  held  as  a  principle 
to  conspire  openly.  Sobrier  came  to  the  ministry  and  com- 
plained that  he  was  watched  by  my  order.  He  said  that  a 
big  mistake  was  made  in  not  trusting  him,  that  he  had  the 
greatest  possible  respect  for  the  Assembly,  and  that  in  case 
of  need  he  would  assist  us  against  Blanqui,  whose  disposi- 
tion was  hostile."  ' 

The  more  revolutionary  leaders,  such  as  Raspail  and 
Huber,  Ledru  never  saw.  With  none  of  these  men  did 
Ledru  ever  attempt  to  conspire ;  even  Goudchaux  admits  that. 
Other  members  of  the  government,  notably  Lamartine,  also 
had  interviews  with  these  captains  of  the  mob.^ 

With  Blanqui  Ledru  never  had  any  relations  though 
several  attempts  were  made  to  bring  them  together.  The 
two  men  were  always  antagonistic.  Blanqui  stated  publicly : 
"  M.  Ledru-Rollin  is  no  friend  of  mine,  far  from  it;  and 

'Barbes  Trial,  Moniteur  for  i8ji(),  pp.  947-8. 

*Quentin-Bauchart  Report  1:311. 

"Carlier,  Carteret,  Favre,  Goudchaux  and  Landrin  in  Qucntin- 
Bauchart  Report  1:245,  252,  260,  289,  308;  Ledru  at  Barbes  trial, 
Moniteur  for  184Q,  p.  948. 


I40   LEDRU-ROLUN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [294 

I  congratulate  myself  on  that  fact,  for  the  hostility  of  a 
man  who  has  ruined  the  republic  seems  to  me  as  easy  to  bear 
as  his  friendship  would  be  difficult."  '  When  Caussidiere, 
at  the  instigation  of  Flotte,  suggested  an  interview,  Ledru 
replied :  "  Blanqui  is  a  man  with  a  bag  of  gall  where  his 
heart  ought  to  be,  and  if  I  should  receive  him,  he  would  go 
about  boasting  of  having  brought  me  around  to  his  side. 
Let  me  hear  no  more  of  this."  ^  Xavier  Durrieu,  the 
radical  editor  of  the  Courier  Francais,  during  the  last  half 
of  March  twice  tried  to  arrange  a  meeting  between  the  two 
chiefs,  but  both  interviews  were  cancelled.^ 

All  hope  of  bringing  them  together  was  ended  by  the  pub- 
lication of  the  so-called  Taschereau  document.  To  Tasch- 
ereau,  a  former  monarchist,  the  minister  of  the  interior  had 
given  the  task  of  examining  the  secret  papers  of  the  late 
dynasty.  This  friend  of  Ledru  made  a  thorough  investiga- 
tion and  discovered  a  certain  letter  which  contained  infor- 
mation on  the  secret  societies,  information  supposed  to  be 
possessed  only  by  Blanqui,  Barbes,  and  Martin  Bernard. 
The  handwriting  of  the  letter  bore  some  resemblance  to  that 
of  Blanqui  and  it  was  commonly  believed  that  while  in 
prison  Blanqui  had  given  the  information  to  the  police. 
After  several  conferences  with  Ledru-Rollin,  Etienne 
Arago,  and  Barbes,  Taschereau  published  the  letter  on 
March  31  in  his  Revue  retrospective.  Barbes,  and  Bernard 
broke  permanently  with  their  former  fellow-conspirator. 
Blanqui  felt  the  blow  and  raged  against  the  government,  the 

'Letter  in  Pcuple,  December  2,  1848.  Cf.  Barbes  trial,  Moniteur  for 
1849,  pp.  1 196-7;  Gefifroy,  Blanqui,  p.  181. 

'Caussidiere  2:  13. 

'Blanqui,  Reponse;  National,  Constitiitionncl,  April  15.  Wassermann 
107-9.  Blanqui  declared  that  Durrieu  suggested  a  modification  of  the 
government  as  basis  of  discussion.  Durrieu  denied  this.  Anyway  it  is 
certain  Ledru  never  gave  authority  for  such  a  proposal. 


295]  CLUBS  AND  CABALS  I4I 

members  of  which  he  called  cowards  and  liars.  He  insisted 
that  the  document  was  a  forgery,  but  he  did  not  accuse 
Ledru  of  complicity  in  its  fabrication/ 

Pierre  Leroux  was  another  revolutionary  who  tried  to  in- 
fluence the  minority  members  of  the  government.  He 
augured  ill  from  the  manifestation  planned  for  April  16  but 
desired  a  new  government  of  socialist  chiefs  and  a  new* 
electoral  law.     Neither  Ledru  nor  Blanc  would  listen  to  him.^ 

Of  all  the  extremist  leaders  the  most  intimate  with  Ledru- 
Rollin  was  George  Sand,  the  celebrated  novelist.  She  con- 
stantly visited  the  minister  to  recommend  some  protege. 
]\Iany  contemporaries  claimed  that  she  was  Ledru's  mistress. 
An  Orleanist  writes :  "  George  Sand  is  trying  to  work  up 
Ledru-Rollin  to  her  own  sanguinary  level,  but  he  has  no 
pluck  and  contents  himself  with  receiving  from  her  red  roses 
dipped  in  blood."  ^     During  the  provisional  government's 

'Speech  of  Taschereau  on  August  28,  1848,  Monitcur  2206;  Blanqui, 
Reponse;  Petiple  December  2,  1848;  Regnault  249.  Possibljr  the  follow- 
ing letter  to  Ledru  refers  to  the  discovery  of  the  document;  although 
it  is  vague  and  undated :  "  My  dear  friend,  it  is  absojutcly,  absolutely 
necessary  that  I  speak  to  you  immediately.  I  shall  not  be  long,  but 
I  shall  be  instructive.  Yours  truly,  J.  Taschereau  " — ^LR  Papers  1 :  199. 
For  original  text  see  appendix.  A  last  attempt  to  bring  Ledru  and 
Blanqui  together  was  made  at  one  o'clock  in  the  morning  of  April  16, 
the  day  of  a  new  manifestation.  Flotte,  one  of  Blanqui's  lieutenants, 
came  to  the  ministry  of  the  interior,  but  Ledru  refused  to  receive  him. — 
Marrast  in  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  1:322;  Garnier-Pages  7:370-1; 
Stern  2 :  333 ;  Wassermann  122 ;  Cremieux  237-8.  Lemer  57-8  gives  an 
account  of  an  interview  between  the  two  leaders,  but  it  is  evidently 
pure  bosh. 

'  Stern  2 :  332.  Lefran^ais  34-5  claims  that  Leroux  merely  begged 
Ledru  not  to  have  the  rappel  beaten  and  that  the  minister  answered: 
"  We  wish  to  make  an  end  to  the  socialists."  For  further  developments 
in  1852  see  Caiman,  Ledru-Rollin  aprcs  1848,  pp.  157-8. 

•Bonde  132.  Cf.  ibid.,  129;  Revcil,  November  5,  1868;  Castellane  4:66. 
The  report  was  spread  that  Ledru  had  given  George  Sand  all  the  fields 
in  one  canton. — Sand,  Souvenirs  121. 


142    LEDRU-ROLLINAXD  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [296 

tenure  of  office  George  Sand  was  a  great  admirer  of  the 
minister  of  the  interior.  In  May  she  found  him  moderate 
and  attacked  his  poHcies  in  the  Vraie  Republiqiie,  but  she 
wrote  him  a  letter  to  assure  him  she  still  admired  him 
deeply.^  But  his  conduct  in  the  Constituent  Assembly  did 
not  meet  with  her  approval  and  in  1850  George  Sand  gave 
the  following  estimate  of  Ledru: 

He  is  a  weak  and  dangerous  instrument  destined  to  be  broken 
in  the  hands  of  the  people.  .  .  .  He  is  pleasant,  expansive, 
confiding,  physically  brave,  sensitive,  ardent,  disinterested  in 
money  matters,  but  he  is  not  a  man  of  action.  .  .  ,  He  is  vain, 
he  loves  power  and  popularity  as  much  as  Lamartine;  he  is 
womanish  in  the  bad  sense  of  the  word,  that  is,  he  abounds 
in  eccentricities,  dislikes,  and  political  conquetry.  .  .  .  He  is 
not  brave  morally  as  he  is  physically;  he  has  a  bad  set  of 
friends  and  he  yields  to  evil  influence ;  he  loves  flattery ;  he 
is  of  unpardonable  instability ;  to  sum  up,  he  will  betray  the 
true  popular  cause  ....  without  wishing  to,  perhaps  with- 
out knowing  it.  .  .  .  He  will  compromise  the  most  serious 
matters  from  motives  the  frivolity  of  which  no  one  would 
suspect.  .  .  .  No  one  more  impressionable,  no  one  more  ver- 
satile, no  one  more  capricious  then  he.- 

In  one  case  George  Sand  embarrassed  the  minister  of  the 
interior  extremely.  A  leaflet  called  Bulletins  of  the  Re- 
public was  published  to  give  information  and  advice  to  the 
departments.  "  It  was  elementary  education  for  the  rural 
districts,"  says  Jules  Favre.^  The  idea  had  originated  with 
postmaster-general  Etienne  Arago  and  the  editorship  was 
confided  to  Regnault,  the  moderate  chief  of  cabinet.  Jules 
Favre,    Delvau,    Anselme    Petetin,    Charles    Lecointe,    and 

^  Sand,  Lettres  2 :  26-S. 
"^Ihid.,  3:  146-155. 
^Quentin-Bauchart  Report  1:281. 


297]  CLUBS  AND  CABALS  143 

George  Sand  aided  in  the  editing/  Ledru's  part  in  the  pub- 
lication consisted  in  obtaining  from  his  colleagues  in  the 
government  permission  to  let  the  bulletins  appear.  He  ex- 
plained their  utility,  but  in  order  to  prevent  misuse  he  asked 
that  each  member  of  the  provisional  government  should  in 
turn  have  the  oversight  of  a  number.  This  plan  was 
adopted,  but  the  members  of  the  government  never  paid  any 
attention  to  this  duty,  and  the  editing  was  left  entirely  to 
subordinates  of  the  interior  department." 

Twenty-five  of  these  bulletins  appeared  between  March 
13  and  May  6.  They  contained  praise  of  the  republic,  ad- 
vice to  electors,  speeches  of  Ledru-Rollin,  decrees  of  the 
government,  defense  of  the  financial  policy  of  Garnier- 
Pages.  In  several  of  them  the  workingmen  were  urged  to 
abstain  from  violence  and  it  was  emphatically  stated  that  a 
republic  did  not  mean  scaffolds.  Probably  the  most  elo- 
quent of  all  the  bulletins  was  the  twelfth,  in  which  George 
Sand  deplored  the  lot  of  the  working  women  and  advocated 
an  amelioration  of  their  condition.  Except  for  the  six- 
teenth, the  innocuousness  of  these  bulletins  is  apparent. 
They  had  no  effect  in  the  cities  and  little  more  in  the  country, 
but  what  little  influence  they  did  have  was  beneficial.  Yet 
not  only  did  Leon  Faucher  declare  them  "  emblems  of  ter- 
ror," and  Barrot  assert  that  they  were  filled  with  the 
"  spirit  of  demagogy  and  violent  socialism,"  but  Arago 
called  them  "  deplorable,"  Dupont  "  deplored  their  effect," 
and  Lamartine  described  them  at  "  burning  with  the  inspira- 
tion of  socialism."  ^ 

*Regnault  197-200;  Garnier-Pages  6:379;  Delvau  371-2;  Monin  in 
Rh-olution  francajse  37 :  545-552. 

*Garnicr-Pages  6:397;  Lamartine  90-2;  Regnault  200. 

'Faucher  on  April  ix,  1849  in  Moniteur  for  1849,  p.  1834;  Barrot 
2:130;  Arago  and  Dupont  in  Qucntin-Bauchart  Report  1:225,  276; 
Lamartine  2:  91. 


1^4   LEDRU-ROLLIX  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [298 

These  hostile  criticisms  apply  only  to  the  notorious  six- 
teenth bulletin  which  said: 

We  could  not  pass  in  a  day  from  the  regime  of  corruption 
to  the  regime  of  right.  ...  If  social  truth  does  not  triumph 
in  the  elections,  if  the  interests  of  a  class  prevail  ....  the 
elections,  which  should  be  the  safeguard  of  the  republic,  would 
undoubtedly  be  its  destruction.  There  would  then  he  only  one 
path  of  safety  for  the  people  who  erected  the  barricades;  that 
would  he  to  manifest  once  more  its  wish  to  postpone  the  de- 
cision made  by  unrepresentative  deputies.  Could  France  wish 
Paris  to  recur  to  this  extreme  remedy?  No,  France  has  con- 
fided to  Paris  a  great  mission.  .  .  .  Paris  rightly  regards  itself 
as  the  guardian  of  the  nation,  the  van  of  the  army  that  fights 
for  the  republican  idea.  .  .  .  Everywhere  let  the  citizens  of 
the  country  districts  unite  with  those  of  the  cities.  Every- 
where the  cause  of  the  people  is  the  same,  everywhere  the  in- 
terests of  the  poor  and  oppressed  are  one.  If  the  republic 
succumbs  at  Paris,  it  will  succumb  not  only  throughout  France, 
but  throughout  the  universe.  Citizens,  it  is  not  necessary 
that  you  force  yourselves  to  violate  the  principle  of  your  own 
sovereignty.  Against  the  danger  of  losing  that  conquest  by 
the  action  of  an  incapable  assembly  or  by  a  movement  of 
popular  indignation,  the  provisional  government  can  only 
warn  you.  .  .  .  Formerly  the  representatives  saved  the  country 
by  proclaiming  the  danger.  .  .  .  Take  courage,  put  aside 
....  material  interests,  narrow  local  passions ;  let  us  save 
ourselves  from  the  enemies  who  flatter  and  caress  us  the 
better  to  strangle  the  liberty  that  serves  them  as  a  shield;  let 
us  save  the  republic  at  any  price. 

That  this  bulletin  was  inflammatory  there  can  be  no  ques- 
tion. The  italicized  portion  distinctly  declares  that  Paris 
has  the  right  to  dissolve  the  coming  legislature  if  it  was  not 
satisfied  with  the  choice  of  France.  Such  an  abuse  of 
popular  sovereignty  was  here  urged  in  a  semi-official  publi- 
cation.    The  conservatives  were  justified  in  their  denuncia- 


299]  CLUBS  AND  CABALS  I45 

tion  of  it.  The  day  after  its  publication  an  uprising  oc- 
curred ;  did  not  this  bulletin  seem  like  the  summons  for  the 
insurrection? 

Who  was  responsible  for  the  sixteenth  bulletin?  Elias 
Regnault  was  charged  with  the  supervision  of  all  manu- 
scripts destined  for  that  pubhcation.  This  particular  article 
had  been  written  by  George  Sand.  Regnault  was  about 
to  start  for  George  Sand's  when  he  heard  that  his  mother 
was  dying.  He  jumped  into  a  cab,  drove  to  the  home  of 
the  authoress,  was  given  the  manuscript,  and  without  read- 
ing it  handed  it  to  the  printer.  This  was  dereliction  of  duty, 
but  who  would  blame  a  son  under  such  circumstances? 
George  Sand  contributed  her  literary  ability  to  the  bulletins, 
but  she  refused  to  accept  any  political  responsibility.  She 
counted  on  the  revision  of  Regnault.  She  wrote  what  she 
as  a  private  citizen  believed  and  left  to  the  chief  of  cabinet 
the  decision  as  to  the  advisability  of  printing  such  senti- 
ments.^ 

Ledru-Rollin  can  hardly  be  accounted  responsible  for  the 
bulletin.  He  could  not  see  everything  that  issued  from  his 
ministry,  and  the  provisional  government  itself  had  realized 
that  the  bulletins  would  give  him  too  much  work,  for  the 
members  of  the  council  were  to  supervise  them  in  turn. 
That  they  failed  to  do  so  was  not  Ledru's  fault.  He  first 
heard  of  this  incendiary  article  when  his  colleagues  criticized 
it  at  a  council  meeting  on  April  15,  the  day  of  publication. 
He  was  deeply  distressed  and  ordered  Carteret  to  prevent  its 
being  sent  to  the  departments.  Carteret  rushed  to  the  post- 
ofhce,  but  it  was  too  late;  he  could  prevent  the  despatch  of 
only  a  comparatively  few  copies.'     Ledru's  own  statement 

'Regnault  284-6;  Sd^nA,  Letlres  2:60-1;  Carteret  and  Favrc  in  Qucntin- 
Bauchart  Report  1:252,  291;  Gamier-Pages  8:213. 

'Garnier-Pages8:  213;  Carteret  and  Favre  in  Quentin-Baucliart  Report 
1:251,  281.  Favre  had  also  tried  unsuccessfully  to  stop  the  despatch 
to  the  departments. 


I_|.6   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [300 

on  this  matter  was :  "  Whereas  my  day  and  night  were 
hardly  sufficient  for  my  work,  it  is  said  that  I  was  respon- 
sible for  a  certain  bulletin  that  was  contrary  to  the  law,  the 
law  I  have  professed  all  my  life.  That  bulletin  is  not  mine 
....  Let  any  one  consider  the  duties  that  kept  me  busy 
and  he  will  see  how  easily  it  might  escape  my  attention,  my 
notice."  ^  i 

Naturally  in  this  connection  there  was  no  collusion  be- 
tween the  minister  of  the  interior,  or  even  those  responsible 
for  the  sixteenth  bulletin,  and  the  instigators  of  the  uprising 
of  April  16.  It  is  clear  that  no  government  official  had  any 
idea  what  was  contained  in  the  article  of  George  Sand; 
Ledru  had  no  more  cognizance  of  this  article  before  it  went 
to  press  than  he  had  of  any  of  the  other  bulletins.  There  is 
ample  testimony  that  he  was  greatly  surprised  and  shocked 
when  he  saw  it,  and  that  he  tried  his  best  to  prevent  its 
being  sent  into  the  provinces.  In  fact  the  spirit  of  the  bul- 
letin, destructive  of  universal  suffrage,  was  diametrically  op- 
posed to  his  ideas.  His  attitude  is  expressed  by  his  secre- 
tary-general :  "  As  to  M.  Ledru-Rollin,  I  never  saw  in  him 
any  thought  other  than  a  fear  for  the  republic  if  the  elections 
did  not  conform  to  the  spirit  of  Paris."  "  IMost  of  the  con- 
servative newspapers  made  capital  of  this  blunder  and  be- 
lieved (or  pretended  to  believe)  in  Ledru's  complicity,  but 
the  moderate  and  liberal  journals,  such  as  the  National  and 
the  Siccle,  published  a  disavowal  subscribed  by  the  entire 
government,  and  even  the  Reforme  repudiated  the  doctrine 
in  the  bulletin. 

Ledru-Rollin  was  accused  of  plotting  not  only  with 
Blanqui,  Barbes,  and  the  other  club-leaders,  not  only  by 
means  of  the  Bulletins  of  the  Republic,  but  also  in  midnight 

^  Speech  on  August  3,  1848  in  Discours  poUtiqucs  2:43-4. 
^Quentin-Bauchart  Report  i :  280. 


201  ]  CLUBS  AND  CABALS  I47 

cabals  (conciliabides)  in  the  ministry  of  the  interior.  The 
truth  is  told  by  Elias  Regnault : 

After  the  exhausting  labors  of  the  day,  it  was  customary 
to  stop  work,  and  at  midnight  or  later  a  few  chosen  friends 
would  meet  in  a  little  room  next  to  the  minister's  office. 
There  Ledru-Rollin  loved  to  seek  distraction  from  his  political 
preoccupations,  joining  in  a  friendly  conversation  which  made 
him  forget  the  anxieties  of  the  day.  Art,  literature,  and 
Gallic  wat  found  there  interpretators  and  exponents.  M. 
Landrin  was  noted  for  his  inexhaustible  sallies,  M.  Etienne 
Arago  for  his  brilliant  southern  wit.  M.  Jeanron,  a  cultured 
spirit  with  an  uncultured  exterior  ....  would  pass  from  a 
facetious  proposal  to  a  wise  dissertation  on  art  and  then  return 
by  an  unexpected  anecdote  to  light  words.  .  .  .  M.  Jeanron 
was  the  most  assiduous  at  those  meetings ;  when  midnight 
sounded,  he  arrived.  IM.  Jules  Favre  was  to  be  found  there 
too,  silent  in  his  gaiety,  more  pensive  than  garrulous.  Near 
him  sat  AI.  Carteret,  a  clever  man  who  had  acquired  in  jour- 
nalism more  political  convictions  than  the  bar  ordinarily  gives. 
Mme.  George  Sand  would  sometimes  appear,  less  however  for 
a  chat  than  to  recommend  to  the  minister  some  proletarian 
in  whom  she  was  interested.  As  to  M.  Ledru-Rollin,  he 
seemed  in  these  intimate  meetings  to  forget  his  office.  He 
was  no  longer  a  minister.  Those  present  were  his  com- 
rades.^ 

Regnault  himself,  Flocon,  Portalis,  and  occasionally  Barbes 
also  attended.  Of  these  men  Carteret,  Favre,  Jeanron,  and 
Regnault  were  subordinates  in  the  ministry  of  the  interior. 
Etienne  Arago  was  postmaster-general;  Landrin,  district- 
attorney;  Portalis,  attorney-general;  Flocon,  a  member  of 
the  provisional  government.  All  these  were  personal 
friends  of  Ledru-Rollin.  All  the  officials-  were  moderates 
except  Flocon  and  Etienne  Arago,  who  were  radicals.    Onlv 

>  Regnault  157-8. 


1^8   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [302 

George  Sand  and  Barbes,  who  attended  rarely,  were  extreme 
revolutionists  and  private  individuals. 

Some  of  these  meetings  were  devoted  to  political  discus- 
sion. All  manner  of  subjects  were  brought  up.  Revision 
of  the  personnel  of  the  government,  postponement  of  the 
general  elections,  annulment  of  monarchical  elections — all 
were  discussed  freely  and  frankly,  and  the  arguments  for 
and  against  were  weighed.  But  never  was  any  plot  hatched 
in  these  midnight  gatherings.  The  minister  of  the  interior 
cannot  be  blamed  for  discussing  politics  with  his  personal 
friends.  The  prevailing  opinions  were  undoubtedly  moder- 
ate, for  such  was  the  tendency  of  those  present.  Landrin 
wrote  to  Ledru :  "  Whatever  happens  I  am  with  you.  But 
I  admit  that  I  should  profoundly  regret  an  appeal  to  arms 
at  this  moment,  in  which  a  name  I  love  and  esteem  would  be 
found  necessarily  coupled  to  names  without  a  future  and 
without  a  reputation."  ^  Ledru  himself  said  a  few  months 
later  in  the  Assembly  when  he  had  been  accused  of  plotting 
at  these  midnight  cabals :  "  Cabals !  That  word  signifies 
something  guilty.  There  existed  ....  business  meetings 
that  lasted  at  times  till  two  or  three  o'clock  in  the  morning. 
....  Very  frequently,  since  I  was  bound  by  the  most  in- 
timate ties  of  friendship  to  the  two  citizens  [Portalis  and 
Landrin]  ....  we  talked  not  as  public  officials  but  as 
citizens."  ^ 

Two  meetings  are  most  frequently  cited  against  him  by 
the  opponents  of  Ledru,  and  both  meetings  were,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  never  held.     It  is  supposed  that  Ledru  had  been  in- 

'LR  Papers  1:214.     For  entire  letter  see  appendix. 

"Speech  of  August  25,  Moniteur  for  1848,  p.  2158.  See  also  Favre, 
Landrin,  and  Portalis  in  ibid.,  2158-2161  and  in  Quentin-Bauchart  Report 
1 :  280,  308,  334 ;  Regnault  264-6 ;  Blanc  2 :  34-5 ;  Stern  2 :  316.  Thus 
there  is  no  truth  in  the  elaborate  accounts  of  debates  in  Gamier-Pages 
7:346-353;  Trouve-^Chauvel  in  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  1:362-4.  See 
also  Chenu  in  ibid.,  i :  184 ;  Barrot  2 :  149. 


303]  CLUBS  AND  CABALS  I49 

duced  by  Caussidiere  to  consider  joining  the  movement 
against  the  moderates,  and  that  Carteret,  Favre,  and  Lan- 
drin  visited  the  minister  on  the  night  of  April  14-15  and 
extracted  from  him  a  promise  to  oppose  the  plans  to  disrupt 
the  government.  Even  Regnault  believed  this  story/  The 
truth  is  that  the  minister  had  never  considered  abandoning 
his  colleagues.  Favre  explained  a  few  months  later :  "  The 
night  before  the  sixteenth  M.  Carteret  and  I  saw  M.  Ledru- 
Rollin.  He  gave  us  his  word  of  honor  that  he  had  no  part 
in  the  movement."  ' 

As  to  the  second  of  the  supposititious  meetings,  Frangois 
Arago  is  responsible  for  the  story  that  on  May  3  in  a  meet- 
ing held  in  the  absence  of  Ledru-Rollin  under  the  presidency 
of  Jules  Favre,  Landrin  and  Portalis  declared  in  favor  of 
the  dissolution  of  the  Assembly  if  it  rejected  their 
plans.  Arago  claimed  to  have  heard  this  story  from 
Duclerc  and  Ledru.  Duclerc  denied  having  told  Arago  such 
a  tale,  and  Ledru  explained  that  Arago  had  misinterpreted 
him.  Moreover,  on  May  3  Landrin  was  far  from  Paris, 
Favre  was  in  the  suburbs,  and  Portalis  did  not  enter  the 
ministry  of  the  interior.^  Thus  the  only  meetings  on  which 
the  accusations  were  specific  did  not  take  place. 

^Regnault  290-3;  Garnier-Pages  7:351-3;  Barrot  1:129. 

^Quentin-Bauchart  Report  1:279-280.  The  demonstration  of  April 
16  is  meant. 

•Speeches  on  August  25  by  Ledru,  Arago,  Duclerc,  Favre,  Landrin, 
and  Portalis  in  Moniteur  for  1848,  p.  2158;  Quentin-Bauchart  Report 
1 :  230,  308,  334.  Arago  was  completely  defeated  on  this  point,  but  he 
had  the  better  of  Ledru  in  a  long  argument  as  to  whether  he  had 
committed  a  breach  of  confidence  in  making  public  his  statements. 


CHAPTER  X 
The  Sixteenth  of  April 

Between  the  two  manifestations  of  March  17  and  April 
16  comparative  quiet  prevailed.  The  conservatives,  to  be 
sure,  took  every  opportunity  to  attack  or  ridicule  their  op- 
ponents. They  called  the  government  le  gouvernement 
derisoire,  Lamartine  La  Tartine,  Ledru-RoUin  Le  dur 
Coquin,  Louis  Blanc  Louis  Blague}  The  newspapers  never 
tired  of  attacking  Ledru.^  The  most  violent  were  the 
Orleanist  Constitiitionnel,  the  legitimist  Assemhlee  Nation- 
ale,  and  the  independent  Presse  of  Emile  de  Girardin.  The 
attacks  of  the  last-named  journal  so  irritated  the  people  of 
Paris  that  they  attacked  the  newspaper  offices.  Ledru  and 
Landrin,  the  district-attorney,  hastened  to  the  scene  of 
disorder,  but  Caussidiere  had  already  restored  quiet.  The 
minister  remained  till  all  danger  was  past  and  returned  again 
the  next  day  when  renewed  disturbances  were  reported. 
Girardin  adopted  a  petty  attitude,  refusing  to  thank  Ledru 
and  denied  that  he  had  asked  for  aid  or  needed  aid.^ 

Preparations  were  made  long  ahead  for  a  new  and  great 
demonstration  to  be  held  on  April  16.  It  is  very  likely  that 
the  purpose  of  the  demonstration  was  pacific  like  the  earlier 
one  of  March  17.     People  are  always  too  willing  to  read 

*Bonde  104.  On  the  other  hand  the  vvorkingmen  called  their  friend 
Lc  dm,  that  is,  the  hardy. — St.  Ferreol,  Proscrits  i :  327. 

'^  Among  other  things  they  attacked  his  acceptance  of  the  unpaid 
professorship  of  French  and  foreign  administration  at  the  College  de 
France.  Even  the  governmental  National  of  April  11  did  not  approve 
the  appointment  of  Ledru  and  three  of  his  colleagues.  None  of  the 
appointees  ever  availed  himself  of  his  privilege  to  give  lectures. 

^Moniteur  for  1848,  pp.  726,  739;  Presse,  March  28-31;  Girardin  305; 
Garnier-Pages  7 :  210-5  ;  Lemer  48-9. 

150  [304 


203]  THE  SIXTEENTH  OF  APRIL  151 

plots  into  the  actions  of  tlieir  opponents.  That  the  leaders 
wished  a  great  manifestation  to  show  their  force,  that  a  few 
subordinates,  particularly  among  the  Blanquists,  desired  to 
use  the  demonstration  to  overthrow  the  government,  that  the 
mob  could  easily  have  been  induced  to  demand  a  change  in 
the  persons  composing  the  executive, — this  seems  the  most 
likely  hypothesis  to  explain  the  actions  of  this  "Day".  Proof 
of  this  hypothesis  cannot  be  found,  but  neither  is  there  any 
proof  of  plotting.  Wassermann  has  made  out  a  good  case 
for  the  innocence  of  both  Barbes  and  Blanqui,^  and  they 
were  the  two  believed  to  be  most  deeply  involved.  Many 
groups  took  part  in  the  parade  and  probably  the  wishes  of 
most  were  pacific.  Louis  Blanc  and  Albert  undoubtedly 
favored  the  movement.  All  the  club  leaders  supported  it. 
Caussidiere  did  not  disapprove  and  merely  feared  the  in- 
fluence of  the  extremists,  Blanqui  and  his  followers. 

Ledru-Rollin  took  no  part  in  organizing  this  affair.  It 
is  commonly  asserted  that  he  experienced  a  severe  attack  of 
indecision.  Urged  on  by  Caussidiere,  Blanc,  Albert,  and 
Barbes,  restrained  by  Flocon,  Landrin,  Portalis,  Favre,  and 
Carteret,  he  is  supposed  alternately  to  have  agreed  with  the 
former  to  accept  a  dictatorship  and  with  the  latter  to  sup- 
press the  movement.  It  is  claimed  that  he  knew  of  the 
movement,  encouraged  it,  was  ready  to  take  part  in  it,  but 
drew  back  at  the  last  moment,  fearing  that,  if  the  existing' 
government  were  overthrown,  the  new  one  might  get  beyond 
his  control."     If  Ledru-Rollin  hesitated  it  was  merely  as  to 

'Wassermann  121-131. 

'Even  Regnault  260-277  believes  this.  It  is  inexplicable  that  Wasser- 
mann after  absolving  Barbes  and  Blanqui  should  still  believe  the  minister 
of  the  interior  implicated,  for  with  whom  could  he  have  plotted?  See 
also  Barrot  2:  123-130;  Beaumont-Vassy  4:215-7;  Du  Camp  142;  Sand, 
Lettrcs  2:17-27;  Carlier  in  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  1:244-5;  Gradis 
1:302-7;  La  Gorce  1:189-203;  Pierre  1:204-218.  Only  Hamel  114-8 
takes  the  view  that  there  was  no  plotting  beforehand. 


I  ^2    LEDRU-ROLLIX  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [306 

whether  he  should  let  the  demonstration  take  place  or  whether 
he  should  take  repressive  measures.  That  his  friendly  at- 
attitude  toward  some  of  the  extremists  may  have  encouraged 
them  is  likely,  but  that  he  plotted  to  overthrow  his  colleagues 
is  without  foundation.  As  soon  as  he  was  certain  of  the 
danger  of  violence,  he  took  measures  to  restrain  the  paraders. 

The  chief  items  in  the  indictment  against  Ledru  in  con- 
nection with  this  affair  may  be  briefly  dismissed.  The  six- 
teenth bulletin  was  not  issued  by  him  on  April  1 5  in  order  to 
stir  up  the  people,  for  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  its  appear- 
ance. The  conspiracy  was  not  hatched  in  the  midnight 
cabals,  for  these  were  innocuous  meetings.  Ledru's  name 
was  retained  on  the  lists  for  a  proposed  new  government 
drawn  up  by  extreme  revolutionists,  but  he  could  not  be 
blamed  for  that.'-  'Marie  said  in  this  connection:  "The 
banner  of  the  revolt  bore  the  names  of  MM.  Ledru-Rollin, 
Louis  Blanc,  Flocon,  and  Albert.  But  I  declare  that  two 
of  them  protested  emphatically  against  this  accusation. 
Those  who  protested  were  M.  Ledru-Rollin  and  particularly 
M.  Flocon,  who  expressed  himself  with  great  indignation. 
....  The  minister  of  the  interior  was  to  be  retained  in 
the  government  but  refused  the  proposition  energetically."  " 

On  May  6,  1848  Ledru  explained  to  the  Assembly  his 
own  attitude  at  this  time : 

I  was  above  all  anxious  to  save  the  revolution  and  main- 
tain order.  I  wished  to  preserve  for  the  popular  victory  its 
grandeur,   its   purity,   its   social   significance.     I   wished  while 

^  Marrast  and  Trouve-Chauvel  in  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  i :  322, 
2:321;  Stern  2:320-2;  and  Lamartine  2:206  claim  that  meetings  were 
held  at  the  ministry  of  the  interior  to  consider  new  lists,  but  their  ac- 
counts are  either  absurd  or  vague,  and  they  contradict  each  other  on 
details. 

^Quentin-Bauchart  Report  1:319.  Cf.  Carteret  and  Favre  in  ihid. 
1 :  250,  279. 


307]  ^^£  SIXTEENTH  OF  APRIL  1 53 

defending  it  against  all  the  assaults  and  attacks  of  the  reaction, 
to  oppose  also  all  violent  ambition  or  dangerous  impatience. 
Accordingly  when  in  reply  to  an  imprudent  step  the  entire 
population  came  without  arms  to  assure  the  provisional  gov- 
ernment of  its  pacific  tendencies,  I  took  part  without  reserve 
in  this  solemn  demonstration;  but  the  day  when  certain  fools 
tried  to  pervert  the  nature  and  spirit  of  a  similar  demonstra- 
tion, I  did  not  hesitate  to  oppose  it.^ 

Again  he  said  on  August  3  : 

April  16  has  been  mentioned  and  it  has  been  said:  You  were 
a  conspirator!  I !  But  it  would  be  for  the  first  time  in  my 
life.  Consult  all  my  friends.  I  never  took  part  in  any  secret! 
society  or  conspiracy.  And  after  having  acted  thus  for  twenty 
years,  I  conspired  while  in  power!  But  that  would  be  too 
inane!  Yet,  after  all,  if  I  had  wished  to  conspire  against 
some  of  my  colleagues  on  April  16 — I  did  not  do  so,  but  allow 
me  the  hypothesis ;  I  might  have  done  so — I  would  have  been 
within  my  rights  and  you  could  not  accuse  me  today.  What 
was  February  24?  An  act.  And  if  I  had  let  myself  be  de- 
ceived but  had  risked  my  life,  if  I  had  ever  thought  that  I 
could  save  the  country  by  governing  it  with  other  men  than 
my  colleagues,  could  not  the  people  undo  on  April  16  what 
they  had  done  on  February  24  ?  - 

In  1849  Leclru  declared  that 

Reports  indicated  that  the  manifestation  was  partly  organ- 
ized by  advocates  of  the  regency  and  of  the  elder  royalist 
line.  Certain  reports  said  it  was  for  the  benefit  of  the 
regency ;  others  for  that  of  legitimacy ;  still  others  that  Blanqui 
was  mixed  up  in  the  movement.  .  .  .  We  were  informed  that 
certain  men  wished  to  overturn  all  or  a  part  of  the  provisional 

^Discours  polUiqucs  2:  26.     In  last  sentence  references  are  to  Marcli  16, 
March  17,  and  April  16. 
*Ihid.  2 :  44-5. 


I  r^   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [30S 

government.  The  police  reports  stated  that  the  manifesta- 
tion was  to  take  place  for  the  benefit  of  the  regency  or  legiti- 
macy. It  has  been  said  that  he  who  would  have  pronounced 
the  name  of  regency  or  legitimacy  would  have  been  torn  to 
pieces.  But  when  one  wishes  to  overturn  a  government,  one 
does  not  cry  Long  live  the  King.  First,  the  existing  govern- 
ment is  overturned,  and  then  by  a  sleight  of  hand  the  govern- 
ment desired  is  established.  Finally,  the  reports  asserted  that 
the  factions,  the  usurpers  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  people, 
wished  to  divert  the  manifestation  from  its  primary  aim. 
I  heard  that  at  the  Champ  de  Mars  leaflets  were  distributed  to 
this  end.  What  proves  that  this  is  true  is  that  all  sincere  re- 
publicans were  frightened,  as  I  was,  and  offered  their  services 
for  the  protection  of  the  republic.^ 

It  is  doubtful  whether  Ledru  at  the  time  believed  the  re- 
ports as  to  monarchical  intrigues;  that  was  probably  an 
after-thought  or  a  political  move.' 

At  the  midday  meeting  of  the  government  on  the  fifteenth, 
Ledru-Rollin  told  of  the  manifestation  prepared  for  the 
morrow.  He  asserted  that  the  demonstration  would  be 
directed  only  against  the  moderates  in  the  government,  but 
he  assured  his  colleagues  of  his  loyalty,  and  of  his  solidarity 
with  them.  The  council  decided  not  to  go  to  the  Hotel  de 
Ville  the  next  day  but  to  assemble  at  the  ministry  of  finance 
in  order  not  to  be  compelled  by  the  clubs  to  yield  to  their 
demands.  In  the  evening  Louis  Blanc  and  Albert  declared 
themselves  pow^erless  against  the  uprising  while  Flocon 
strongly  insisted  on  his  loyalty  to  the  government.^  Ledru 
passed   the   night   in   examining  Paris,    in   traversing   the 

^  Barbes  Trial,  Moniteur  for  1849,  pp.  947-8,  962. 

*At  the  Barbes  trial  Blanqui  ridiculed  the  idea  and  Marie  denied  that 
Ledru  believed  it. — Ibid.,  pp.  947,  1079. 

'Garnier-Pages  7:260-7;  Regnault  287-9;  Arago  in  Quentin-Bauchart 
Report  1 :  226 ;  Marie  at  Barbes  trial,  Moniteur  for  1849,  PP-  107S-9. 


309]  THE  SIXTEENTH  OF  APRIL  155 

Streets,  and  did  not  go  to  bed  till  four  in  the  morning  to 
snatch  three  hours'  sleep/ 

On  the  sixteenth  Ledru  was  at  his  desk  by  seven-thirty  in 
the  morning.  Every  quarter  of  an  hour  he  received  a  police 
report.  All  manner  of  rumors  were  rife.  The  story  spread 
that  Ledru-Rollin  and  Louis  Blanc  had  been  murdered.  The 
workingmen  had  gathered  at  an  early  hour  at  the  Cliamp  de 
Mars  to  elect  fourteen  officers  to  the  staff  of  the  National 
Guard.  The  crowd  was  peaceful,  but  was  being  affected  by 
the  rumors  that  were  flying  about.  Ledru  feared  lest  some 
extremists  should  cause  disorder  and  decided  to  beat  the 
rappcl,  that  is,  call  out  the  National  Guard.  At  nine  thirty 
he  left  his  office  to  consult  with  Lamartine;  as  he  went  out, 
Carlier  heard  him  mutter :  "  This  must  be  drowned  in  a 
movement  of  the  National  Guard,  and  the  rappel  must  be 
sounded."  "  Lamartine  strongly  urged  Ledru  to  call  out  the 
Parisian  militia,  and  Ledru  returned  to  his  office  more  firmly 
convinced  of  the  need  of  this  measure.^  At  eleven  the  min- 
ister of  the  interior  was  handed  a  police  report  which  finally 
decided  him.  He  set  out  for  the  Esplanade  des  Invalides 
where  General  Courtais,  commander  of  the  National  Guard, 
was  reviewing  some  of  his  troops,  and  in  the  presence  of 
Marrast    gave    Courtais    the  order   to    call    out    the   entire 

'Ledru  in  speech  of  August  3,  1848,  Discours  poUtiqucs  2:45;  and 
at  Barbes  trial  1849,  Moniteur,  947. 

•Quentin-Bauchart  Report  1:244-5. 

'Lamartine  claims  that  Ledru  was  overwhehned  by  his  responsibility 
and  did  not  know  what  to  do,  that  he,  Lamartine,  advised  the  beating 
of  the  rappel,  and  that  Ledru  eagerly  leaped  at  this  suggestion. — 
Quentin-Bauchart  Report  i :  305 ;  Lamartine  2 :  207-9,  Blanc  in  Pcuple, 
December  7,  1848,  Stern  2 :  334-9,  and  Rcgnault  293-303  attribute  the 
original  idea  to  Lamartine.  But  Ledru  on  August  3,  1848  specifically 
denied  this:  "I  did  not  ask  M.  Lamartine:  shall  I  beat  the  rappel'?  I 
had  it  beaten." — Discours  poUtiques  2 :  45-6. — Cf.  Ledru  at  Barbes  trial, 
Moniteur  for  1849,  p.  947.  Carteret  bears  out  Ledru. — ^Quentin-Bauchart 
Report  1 :  250. 


156   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [310 

National  Guard.  The  General  objected  that  he  had  suffi- 
cient trops  to  quell  a  tumult,  but  Ledru  declared  that  he 
wished  to  engulf  the  demonstration,  that  partial  forces 
would  suffice  to  overpower  but  not  to  prevent  an  attempt  at 
civil  war,  and  that  a  riot  must  be  above  all  avoided/  The 
order  to  beat  the  rappel  met  with  difficulties  at  headquarters 
and  at  one  o'clock  Marrast  had  to  repeat  the  command.^ 

Ledru  returned  to  his  ministry  and  received  the  congratu- 
lations of  Jules  Favre.  Soon  the  sound  of  drums  was 
heard.  Louis  Blanc  and  Albert  arrived  and  criticized  the 
minister  for  his  order  to  beat  the  rappel.  Ledru-Rollin 
replied  to  this :  "  Blanqui  wished  to  exploit  the  manifesta- 
tion to  his  advantage.  I  do  not  wish  to  deliver  the  republic 
and  France  to  Blanqui."  Ledru  joined  his  colleagues  at  the 
ministry  of  finance,  as  had  been  decided.  Albert  and  Louis 
Blanc,  frankly  disappointed,  came  also,  but  when  the  other 
members  of  the  government  refused  to  expose  themselves  to 
the  rioters,  these  two  socialists  set  out  alone  for  the  Hotel 
de  Ville.' 

At  the  city  hall  Marrast  and  Lamartine  alone  represented 
the  government.  General  Changarnier  had  offered  his  ser- 
vices and  was  put  in  charge  of  the  troops.  The  officials 
were  worried.  Which  would  arrive  first,  the  crowd  or  the 
National  Guard?  It  was  the  latter  which  came  first;  even 
the  twelfth  legion  under  Colonel  Barbes  responded  to  the 
call.  The  procession  of  clubbists  and  workingmen,  when 
they  arrived,  had  to  pass  between  the  serried  ranks  of  these 
armed  forces.     When  it  was  certain  that  the  demonstration 

^Gamier- Pages  7:  379-80;  Marrast  an  August  3,  1848,  Monitcur.  p.  1874- 
^This  gave  rise  to  the  story  of  Changarnier  that  Ledru  never  ordered 
the  beating  of  the  rappel. — Quentin-Bauchart  Report   1:260;  Moniteur 
for  1848,  p.  1874.    iSee  Marrast's  refutation  of  Changarnier,  Moniteur, 
p.  1874. 
'  Garnier-Pages  7:  383-4,  391 ;  Blanc  in  Penple,  December  7,  1848. 


21 1]  THE  SIXTEENTH  OF  APRIL  1 57 

was  under  control,  Ledru  and  his  colleagues  set  out  for  the 
Hotel  de  Ville.  They  arrived  there  at  four-thirty,  an  hour 
and  a  half  after  the  procession  had  begun  to  defile.  Ledru 
sent  off  a  note  to  Favre :  "  Everything  is  quiet ;  the  people 
are  marching  past  without  disorder."  All  the  members  of 
the  provisional  government  appeared  in  the  square  and 
listened  to  delegates  from  the  clubs.  Louis  Blanc  and 
deputy-mayor  Adam  answered  them.  Lamartine  had  made 
a  speech  before  the  arrival  of  his  colleagues,  but  long  after 
the  others  retired,  he  continued  haranguing  parts  of  the  pro- 
cession.    It  was  not  till  ten-thirty  that  the  parade  was  over.^ 

Ledru's  actions  throughout  the  day  were  irreproachable. 
Such  persons  as  Louis  Blanc  and  Delvau  blamed  him  for 
beating  the  rappel,  but  that  was  his  duty.  Ledru-Rollin  was 
the  minister  of  the  interior,  responsible  for  the  maintenance 
of  order.  It  is  possible  that  even  if  the  National  Guard  had 
not  been  called  out,  the  day  would  have  passed  peaceably; 
that,  as  Blanqui  claimed,  the  only  desire  of  the  manifestants 
was  to  demand  a  ministry  of  labor  and  to  proclaim 
their  devotion  to  the  republic.  But  it  is  certain  that  there 
was  possible  danger,  and  it  was  the  duty  of  the  minister  of 
the  interior  to  take  all  proper  precautions.  As  long  as 
Ledru  expected  the  demonstration  to  be  pacific,  he  let  the 
preparations  go  on  unheeded;  when  he  feared  violence,  he 
called  out  the  National  Guard  to  prevent  it. 

The  results  of  April  16  were  on  the  whole  good.  Fear  of 
the  extremists  decreased,  for  it  was  seen  that  they  had  been 
controlled.  Fear  of  Ledru-Rollin  also  slightly  diminished. 
The  reactionaries  still  believed  him  a  Jacobin  and  a  con- 
spirator, but  sensible  men  realized  that  he  had  definitely 
aligned  himself  on  the  side  of  order.  In  the  government 
too  there  was  a  change.     The  leaders  of  the  majority  and 

^Moniteur  for  1848,  p.  849;  Favre  in  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  1 :  280. 


1 38   LEDRU-ROLLIX  AND  SECOXD  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [312 

the  minority  drew  close  together.  The  beating  of  the  rappel 
had  caused  bitter  feeling  in  the  hearts  of  Louis  Blanc  and 
Albert,  and  they  drew  further  and  further  away  from  Ledru- 
Rollin  and  Flocon.  These  two  radicals  had  seen  the 
danger  from  the  extreme  revolutionists  and  were  ready  to 
postpone  their  revolutionary  innovations.  The  responsi- 
bility of  office  had  its  effect  on  Ledru,  and  the  period  be- 
tween April  16  and  June  24  (the  day  of  his  fall  from 
power)  was  the  most  conservative  period  of  his  political 
career.  Lamartine,  on  the  other  hand,  had  realized  two 
facts,  namely,  the  power  of  the  extremists  and  the  real 
moderation  of  his  radical  colleagues.  He  was  ready  to  ad- 
mit that  a  slightly  more  advanced  program  might  be  desir- 
able. The  union  of  himself  and  Ledru  steadily  grew  firmer 
as  the  date  for  the  meeting  of  the  new  legislature  ap- 
proached. Ledru  was  frequently  seen  at  his  colleague's 
house  where  hitherto  he  had  not  gone.^ 

The  provisional  government  met  on  the  seventeenth.  It 
caused  to  be  published  an  account  of  the  demonstration  in 
which  both  the  National  Guard  and  the  people  were  praised, 
and  only  the  few  extremists  who  incited  to  disorder  were 
blamed."  The  minister  of  the  interior  told  his  colleagues 
of  the  plans  for  a  committee  of  public  safety  and  of  the  in- 
trigues of  Blanqui  the  previous  day.  Attorney-General 
Portalis  called  for  an  investigation  of  the  plots.  Only 
Cremieux  protested,  on  account  of  the  difficulty  of  framing 
an  indictment.     The  member  of  the  provisional  government 

^Des  Cognets,  Lamartine  410.  Cf.  Times,  April  21.  However, 
Carteret  asserts  that  the  disagreement  did  not  disappear  till  a  few  days 
before  the  legislature  met  and  Landrin  tells  how  Favre  made  an  unsuc- 
cessful attempt  at  reconciliation. — Quentin-Bauchart  Report  i :  253,  309. 

^Moniteur  for  1848,  p.  849.  Pierre  Leroux  visited  Ledru  on  the 
seventeenth.  "What  did  you  do  yesterday?"  asked  the  socialist. 
"  We  killed  the  sectaries,"  replied  the  minister.  "  You  killed  the  re- 
public," retorted  Leroux. — ^Leroux  229. 


313]  THE  SIXTEENTH  OF  APRIL  1 59 

most  anxious  for  an  inquiry  was  Louis  Blanc ;  Ledru  warmly 
seconded  him.     A  judicial  investigation  was  ordered/ 

The  city  had  not  yet  quieted  down  completely  after  the 
demonstration.  On  the  eighteenth  all  Paris  was  agitated  by 
the  renewed  beating  of  the  rappel.  There  was  great  excite- 
ment and  many  arrests  were  made,  but  it  all  proved  a  false 
alarm.  The  next  day  trouble  was  still  feared,  and  on 
Albert's  warning,  Ledru  urged  Caussidiere  to  take  precau- 
tions; nothing,  however,  occurred."  On  the  nineteenth,  on 
the  advice  of  the  prefect  of  police,  Ledru  demanded  the 
arrest  of  Blanqui  and  his  lieutenants.  Only  Lamartine  and 
Albert  opposed  this;  even  Louis  Blanc  sided  with  the 
majority.^  A  year  later  Ledru  explained:  "There  were 
some  members  of  the  government  who  believed  that  Blanqui 
had  a  great  influence;  others,  and  I  was  of  that  number, 
believed  that  he  had  few  supporters  and  that  his  only  in- 
fluence was  due  to  his  activity.  Blanqui  continually  dis- 
quieted us.  On  the  eve  of  the  Fete  de  la  Fraternite  an 
order  for  his  arrest  was  issued  after  a  lively  discussion. 
The  order  was  signed  because  it  was  feared  that  the  distur- 
bances were  not  yet  over ;  when  I  saw  the  magnificent  man- 
oevres  of  the  National  Guard,  I  said :  A  man  is  nothing\ 
against  an  entire  people,  and  I  gave  a  counter-order."  ■* 

^  Garnier-Pages  8:24-6;  Blanc  2:48;  Stern  2:343;  Moniteur  for  JS48, 
pp.  859,  954.  Landrin  had  already  asked  Ledru  for  permission  to  make 
an  inquiry,  threatening  to  resign  if  he  were  not  allowed  to  do  so.  "  Go 
as  far  as  you  like ;  proceed  and  the  government  will  do  its  duty,"  had 
replied  the  minister. — ^Landrin  on  August  25,  1848,  Moniteur,  p.  1857  and 
in  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  i :  308. 

2  Caussidiere  2:29-35,  59;  Bonde  103.  On  the  nineteenth  George  Sand 
wrote  to  her  son:  "I  have  just  left  portly  Lcdru-Rollin  trying  to  haul 
'himself  onto  a  horse  for  a  ride  through  Paris,  laughing  and  not  caring 
a  fig  for  what  is  going  on." — Lettres  2 :  29. 

3  Gamier- Pages  8:37-41;  Faure  220. 
*Barbes  trial,  Moniteur  for  1849,  p.  947. 


l6o   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [314 

This  Fete  de  la  Fraternite,  held  on  April  20,  was  a  grand 
review  of  the  National  Guard.  Ledru  arrived  early  to 
superintend  the  arrangements  and  caused  considerable  irrita- 
tion because  he  occasionally  forgot  to  bow  to  the  audience  or 
to  a  passing  officer/  He  was  obliged  to  adjust  a  dispute  be- 
tween the  men  of  the  Luxembourg  and  those  of  the  National 
Workshops,  who  were  assigned  to  the  same  place;  the  two 
groups  almost  came  to  blows,  but  Ledru  induced  them  to 
mix  together.'  At  ten-thirty  the  other  members  of  the  gov- 
ernment arrived  and  took  places  in  a  semi-circle  under  the 
Arc  de  Triomphe.  Arago  made  a  speech  and  then  each  of 
his  colleagues  gave  a  flag  to  the  commander  of  this  corps 
or  that.^  A  part  of  the  crowd  followed  Ledru  back  to  his 
ministry  and  forced  him  to  make  a  speech.  Ledru-Rollin 
preached  peace,  fraternity,  and  confidence  in  the  legislature 
that  was  to  meet.*  Due  to  a  misunderstanding  part  of  the 
third  legion  had  not  taken  part  in  the  celebration.  Accord- 
ingly it  was  reviewed  two  days  later.  At  nine-thirty  in 
spite  of  the  rain,  Ledru,  surrounded  by  several  of  his 
colleagues,  made  a  speech.  He  explained  the  mistake  and 
lauded  fraternity  and  the  republic.^ 

^Assemhlee  Nationale,  April  21;  Times,  April  24. 

'Thomas  210. 

^Moniteur  for  1848,  p.  871 ;  Times,  April  24. 

*Monitenr  for  1848,  p.  878;  Delvau  474-5;  Caussidiere  2:71-2. 

^Moniteur  for  1848,  p.  878;  Garnier- Pages  8:  64-6. 


CHAPTER  XI 

The  Elections  of  April  Twenty-third 

During  the  period  after  April  i6  the  chief  preoccupation 
of  the  provisional  government  was  the  coming  elections  to 
the  Constituent  Assembly.  In  Paris  Ledru-Rollin  entrusted 
to  a  subordinate  the  duty  of  watching  the  elections  at  the 
mayoralties/  but  Marrast  ordered  his  officials  not  to  permit 
any  supervision  by  the  interior  department.  On  April  24 
Ledru  brought  up  the  matter  in  a  council  meeting.  He  was 
in  the  right — even  Garnier-Pages  admitted  that — but  he 
used  such  unusually  severe  language  that  a  rupture  with  his 
colleagues  resulted,  and  he  tendered  his  resignation.  Lam- 
artine,  who  had  not  been  present  at  the  discussion,  offered 
his  mediation.  He  showed  the  minister  of  the  interior  how 
a  break  would  encourage  the  extremists  and  induced  him  to 
withdraw  his  resignation.  Ledru  returned  to  the  meeting  in 
a  conciliatory  spirit,  and  his  colleagues  passed  a  decree  giv- 
ing him  complete  right  of  surveillance  over  the  elections  of 
Paris.  Marrast  yielded,  but  he  formed  the  resolution  never 
to  take  part  in  another  administration  of  which  Ledru-Rollin 
was  a  member.  This  was  the  only  time  the  minister  of  the 
interior  ever  resigned.^ 

Ledru-Rollin  tried  to  influence  the  elections  by  propa- 
zin Paris  there  was  not  only  a  mayor  of  the  entire  city,  but  there  was 
under  him  a  mayor  for  each  arrondissemcnt. 

'  Minutes  of  the  council,  April  24,  Marrast,  and  Pagnerre  in  Quentin- 
Bauchart  Report  2:38;    1:322,   330;    Garnicr-Pagcs  8:281;   Lamartine 
2 :  225  :  Normanby  i :  245  ;  Constitutionnel,  April  23,  1848;  Times,  April  27. 
315]  161 


1 62   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [3 1 6 

ganda,  by  moral  suasion/  The  commissioners,  mayors,  and 
other  officials  were  urged  to  spread  republican  ideas.  In 
some  cases  they  busied  themselves  with  opposing  conserva- 
tive candidates,  and  sometimes,  notably  in  the  case  of  Thiers, 
with  success.  But  in  general  it  may  be  said  that  the  elec- 
tions were  exceedingly  free,  more  free  than  any  other  of 
the  times.  To  aid  the  commissioners,  the  Bulletins  of  the 
Republic  were  distributed  throughout  the  rural  districts  for 
the  purpose  of  instilling  democratic  principles. 

Another  means  of  influencing  the  electorate  adopted  by 
Ledru-Rollin  was  the  sending  of  workingmen  from  Paris 
to  preach  republican-  doctrines  to  their  brothers  in  the  pro- 
vinces. This  caused  more  scandal  than  any  other  single  act 
of  the  minister.  The  Club  des  Clubs,  composed  of  delegates 
from  other  clubs,  chose  a  committee  whose  duty  was  to  send 
to  the  departments  workingmen  who  should  aid  the  election 
of  designated  candidates.  Longepied  was  president  of  the 
committee;  Laugier,  Francois  Arago's  nephew,  was  treas- 
urer. The  committee  did  not  have  sufficient  funds  and  ap- 
plied to  the  secretary  of  the  interior  for  aid.  Ledru  re- 
fused to  commit  himself  without  consulting  his  colleagues. 
Accordingly,  one  day  in  his  daily  report  to  the  council  the 
minister  of  the  interior  commented  on  the  activity  of  the 
reactionaries  in  the  provinces  and  showed  how  the  clubs 
were  becoming  more  loyal  to  the  government.  Then  he 
spoke  of  the  proposal  of  the  Club  des  Clubs.  He  supported 
it  on  two  main  grounds;  the  emissaries  would  be  able  to 
spread  republican  ideas  through  the  backward  country  dis- 
tricts, and  the  adoption  of  the  proposition  would  propitiate 
the  clubs  whereas  to  reject  it  would  tend  to  make  them  re- 
volt. The  government  saw  the  force  of  these  arguments 
and  appropriated  123,000  francs  for  this  purpose,  but  on 

^The  charges  of  intimidation  and  bribery  are  baseless;  for  charges  see 
Chamier  i :  156-9,  186-8. 


317]       THE  ELECTIONS  OF  APRIL  TWENTY-THIRD         163 

condition,  first  that  the  delegates  should  not  be  regarded  as 
official  agents,  should  confine  themselves  to  disseminating' 
doctrines,  should  not  aid  individual  candidates ;  and  secondly 
that  the  minister  of  the  interior  should  himself  superintend 
carefully  the  selection  of  the  delegates.  Unfortunately  these 
two  conditions  were  not  carried  out.  The  delegates  be- 
lieved that  one  of  their  chief  duties  was  to  designate  worthy 
candidates.  Ledru  believed  that  he  could  rely  on  the  choices 
made  by  Longepied,  Laugier,  and  their  colleagues. 

The  committee  of  the  Club  des  Clubs  met  every  day  and 
kept  a  careful  account  of  expenditures.  In  the  evening  it 
went  to  the  ministry  of  the  interior  and  gave  to  Ledru- 
Rollin,  or  in  his  absence  to  Carteret,  a  list  of  the  agents  and 
a  memorandum  of  the  sums  given  to  each  of  these  agents. 
The  committee  also  submitted  extracts  from  the  reports  of 
its  emissaries.  Sometimes  Longepied  and  his  friends  re- 
mained to  discuss  politics  with  Ledru,  for  they  enjoyed  his 
confidence.  Once,  when  they  told  him  of  their  fears  of 
reaction,  the  minister  sent  them  to  Lamartine,  but  their  in- 
terview with  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  was  unsatisfac- 
tory, as  the  latter  did  not  share  their  fears. 

Over  four  hundred  delegates  were  despatched  to  the  de- 
partments between  the  end  of  March  and  the  twentieth  of 
April.  They  received  six,  eight,  or  ten  francs  a  day,  ac- 
cording to  the  locality  to  which  they  were  sent.  Most  of 
the  agents  were  satisfactory,  but  some  extremists  among* 
them  preached  anarchistic  doctrines.  Longepied  and 
Laugier  claim  that  the  committee  gave  conciliatory  advice 
to  their  emissaries  and  that  the  delegates  had  a  moderating 
effect  and  were  not  inciters  to  violence.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
at  the  time,  their  actions  were  little  noticed;  it  was  later, 
when  arguments  against  the  radicals  were  sought,  that  these 
club-delegates  came  into  prominence.  The  project  certainly 
was  foolish;  it  was  another  extreme  example  of  the  popular 


1 6_j.   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [318 

movement  to  exhalt  the  position  of  the  oiivrier.     It  was  an- 
other bad  road  to  democracy,  paved  with  good  intentions.^ 
Ledru-Rolhn  defended  his  conduct  before  the  Assembly 
on  x\ugust  21,  1848  : 

The  men  sent  into  the  provinces  were  paid  from  a  fund  de- 
temiined  by  the  government.  Xow,  at  that  time  you  were 
reposing  at  leisure  in  your  departments.  But  in  Paris  the 
exuberant  forces  of  the  revolution  were  boiling  over.  But  in 
Paris  the  men  who  had  been  kings  on  the  barricades  wished 
to  impose  conditions  which  at  times  were  unreasonable.  Paris 
could  not  like  an  immense  furnace  contain  the  exuberant 
force;  an  outlet  was  needed,  assistance  in  regaining  their 
homes  for  numerous  citizens.  Moreover,  there  were  de- 
partments where  the  working  people  misinterpreted  the  re- 
volution, wished  even  after  the  revolution  of  February  24  to 
proceed  to  insurrection.  There  were  great  cities  like  Lyons 
and  Lille  to  which  it  was  necessary  to  send  workingmen  to 
speak  the  fraternal  language  which  would  not  have  been 
listened  to  from  our  lips,  as  we  were  mere  bourgeois.  That  is 
why  it  was  necessary. - 

Besides  sending  out  these  civilians,  the  Club  des  Clubs 
despatched  non-commissioned  officers  to  the  armies  in  order 
to  influence  the  soldiers  and  to  point  out  to  them  the  com- 
manders whose  influence  was  feared  in  the  elections.  Ac- 
cordingly a  member  of  the  directing  committee,  provided  with 

■'Instructions  to  and  reports  by  delegates,  testimony  of  Delaire  and 
Longepied  in  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  1:171,  210,  232-3,  315-6;  2:79, 
116-132;  Longepied  49-51,  59,  63-109,  131;  Gamier-Pages  7:233-9;  Ducos 
Report  in  Moniteur  for  1849,  pp.  1553-4;  Sand  in  Vie  de  Paris,  1904, 
pp.  388-9 ;  Regnault  352-3 ;  Lamartine  2 :  192-3 ;  Wassermann  87-9 ; 
Antony  250-267.  The  Ducos  commission  examined  the  affair  thoroughly 
and  exonerated  Ledru  from  the  charges  of  dishonesty  or  misuse  of 
secret  funds,  but  it  rejected  "the  123,000  francs  by  the  use  of  which 
popular  sovereignty  seems  to  have  been  violated."  For  absurd  accounts 
by  conservatives  see  Barrot  2:61;  Times,  August  26,  1848. 

^Discours  politiques  2:62-3. 


319]       THE  ELECTIONS  OF  APRIL  TWENTY-THIRD         165 

a  letter  from  Ledru,  went  to  see  an  aide  of  Frangois  Arago ; 
he  desired  a  furlough  for  nineteen  non-commissioned  officers 
who  were  to  go  to  different  regiments  and  develop  republi- 
can sentiments  among  them.  The  matter  was  referred  to 
the  minister  of  war  who  hesitated  several  days.  Finally 
permission  was  granted,  but  the  military  delegates  were  to 
report  to  the  colonel  of  the  regiment  to  which  they  were 
sent.  Some  of  these  emissaries  failed  to  do  this  and  them- 
selves distributed  inflammatory  articles  among  the  soldiers. 
As  there  were  many  complaints,  the  non-commissioned  of- 
ficers were  recalled  on  April  16,  eight  days  after  their  de- 
parture. That  they  caused  much  disturbance  in  the  army 
is  untrue,  for  there  was  less  disturbance  after  April  8  than 
before.  This  was  another  of  those  well-meaning  attempts 
of  the  minister  of  the  interior  which  had  no  good  results, 
but  which  was  not  in  itself  reprehensible.^ 

In  Paris  election  lists  were  numerous.  Everyone  had  a 
slate  of  his  own  and  almost  every  prominent  man  was  a 
candidate.  In  general  there  were  three  types  of  lists. 
Those  of  the  socialists  were  headed  by  Louis  Blanc  and 
Albert,  those  of  the  radicals  by  Ledru-Rollin  and  Flocon, 
those  of  the  moderates  by  the  other  seven  members  of  the  pro- 
visional government.  Frequently  the  socialists  and  radicals 
were  included  in  one  list.  Occasionally  all  eleven  members 
were  inserted  together,  or  a  selection  was  made  among 
them.  The  Peuple  Constituant  of  Lamennais  advised  the 
election  of  Lamartine  and  Ledru,  and  Sobrier  followed  suit. 
In  general  the  moderates  tried  to  exclude  their  more  revo- 
lutionary colleagues.  The  most  industrious  were  Marrast 
and  Marie,  who  used  their  influence  particularly  in  the 
National  Workshops.     Ledru  himself  took  little  part  in  the 

'Dcuzy,  Longcpicd,  and  Larabit  in  Qucntin-Bauchart  Report  1:273, 
316,  appendix;  Larabit  on  August  25,  1848,  Moniteur,  p.  2160.  Larabit 
was  the  aide  of  Arago. 


1 66  LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [320 

campaigning,  but  his  partisans  waxed  virulent  against  the 
moderates.  Besides  being  a  candidate  in  Paris,  Ledru  also 
ran  in  six  departments  and  in  Algeria.^  In  Saone  and 
Loire  he  received  the  support  of  Lamartine.  In  Sarthe  the 
influential  Trouve-Chauvel  broke  with  the  party  of  Ledru 
and  ruined  the  minister's  chance  of  election."  Everywhere 
the  clergy  worked  against  him. 

The  elections  passed  off  smoothly;  except  at  Limoges  and 
Rouen  there  were  no  disturbances.  The  voting  took  place 
on  April  23,  Easter  day.  At  first  the  Catholics  had  com- 
plained of  this,  but  they  soon  realized  how  they  could  turn 
it  to  their  own  account.  Entire  villages  marched  to  the 
polls  headed  by  their  curates.  In  one  way  the  election  was 
a  great  triumph  for  the  minister  of  the  interior ;  eighty-two 
per  cent  of  those  entitled  to  vote  cast  their  ballots.^  But  in 
the  general  character  of  the  candidates  elected  Ledru  was 
grieviously  disappointed.  The  elections  were  overwhelm- 
ingly in  favor  of  the  moderates.  Ledru-Rollin  himself,  al- 
though elected  in  three  places,  could  derive  no  pleasure  from 
the  result.  In  Paris  thirty-four  representatives  were  chosen. 
Lamartine  came  first  with  259,800  vote  out  of  314,986 
voters.  The  other  six  members  of  the  government  majority 
followed.  Ledru  stood  only  twenty-fourth  with  131,587 
votes,  immediately  after  Albert  and  just  ahead  of  Flocon 
and  Louis  Blanc.  In  Saone  and  Loire  Ledru  was  elected 
thirteenth  out  of  fourteen;  in  distant  Algeria  third  out 
of  four.  EveryAvhere  else  he  was  defeated;  in  the  Sarthe 
twelve  deputies  were  elected  and  he  was  fourteenth;  in  Cote 

^National,  Constitutionnel,  April  10,  11,  12,  1848.  The  departments 
■were  Cote  d'Or,  Lower  Loire,  North,  Saone  and  Loire,  Sarthe,  and 
Lower  Seine. 

*Guyon  2:  49-92. 

'Curtis  50. 


321  ]       THE  ELECTIONS  OF  APRIL  TWENTY-THIRD         167 

d'Or  ten,  and  he  was  seventeenth ;  in  the  North  twenty-eight, 
and  he  was  sixty-first/ 

In  Rouen  the  elections  turned  out  badly  for  the  proletariat, 
and  accordingly  on  April  27  there  was  an  insurrection  which 
the  generals  in  command  ruthlessly  put  down.  Little  force 
would  have  been  needed  to  end  this  petty  fiare-up,  but  the 
generals  exerted  their  full  authority,  killing  and  wounding 
far  more  than  was  necessary.  Ledru  read  to  the  council  a 
report  which  was  unfavorable  to  the  military  commanders, 
and  Louis  Blanc  asked  that  they  be  sent  before  a  council  of 
war.  Frangois  Arago,  minister  of  war,  opposed  this  pro- 
posal and  completely  defeated  his  adversaries,  for  an  investi- 
gator of  the  affair  was  appointed,  w^ho  was  hostile  to  the 
radicals."  Except  for  this  difference  of  opinion  the  time 
between  the  elections  and  the  meeting  of  the  new  legislature 
passed  peaceably  for  the  government. 

The  National  Constituent  Assembly  met  on  May  4.  The 
provisional  government  attended  as  a  body  and  relinquished 
its  powers.  During  this  first  session  the  republic  was  ac- 
claimed seventeen  times.  Most  of  the  session  was  spent  in 
verifying  the  credentials  of  the  members.  Certain  conser- 
vatives tried  to  throw  the  blame  for  the  absence  of  a  few 
election  returns  upon  the  minister  of  the  interior,  but  the 

1  Saone  and  Loire  :  ist  name  129J879  last  name  67,178  Ledru  68,462 

Algeria:  istname     5,255  last  name    3,335  Ledru   3.412 

Sarthe:  istname  113,016  last  name  55,535  Ledru  46,806 

Cote  d'Or:  istname    75,916  last  name  41,629  Ledru  24,445 

North:  istname  227,765  last  name  93,666  Ledru  42,173 

No  statistics  are  available  for  Lower  Seine  or  Lower  Loire.  Figures 
taken  from  Moniteur,  National,  Commune  dc  Paris.  For  election  in  the 
North  see  Gossez  141,  in  the  Sarthe  see  Guyon  2:91-2. 

'Arago  in  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  1:225;  Blanc  2:48;  Stern  2:364. 
Ledru  and  his  commissioner,  Deschamps,  were  accused  of  being  impli- 
cated in  the  riot.  The  truth  is  that  arms  had  been  sent  to  the  National 
Guard  of  Rouen  on  the  order  of  the  minister  of  the  interior,  and  that 
these  arms  were  seized  by  the  rioters. 


1 68   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [322 

Assembly  would  not  listen  to  them.  The  extreme  left  met 
later  in  the  day  under  the  presidency  of  Flocon  and  arranged 
a  slate  for  the  officers  of  the  assembly.  Its  list  headed  by 
Trelat  included  many  moderates.  Fifty  or  sixty  delegates 
were  present,  such  as  Ledru-Rollin,  Etienne  Arago,  Louis 
Blanc,  and  Barbes.^  The  next  session,  May  5,  was  taken 
up  with  further  verification  of  credentials  and  with  matters 
of  organization.  Buchez,  the  Catholic  socialist,  was  elected 
president  of  the  Assembly.  A  deputy  wished  to  interpellate 
Ledru  on  the  post-election  riot  at  Limoges,  but  the  Chamber, 
desiring  to  preserv^e  harmony,  passed  to  the  order  of  the  day. 
On  May  6  the  provisional  government  began  a  series  of 
reports  on  its  conduct  in  office.  First  came  Dupont  de 
I'Eure's  general  account.  Then  the  others  followed,  one 
after  another.  The  first  was  Ledru-Rollin,  who  explained 
that  he  could  give  only  a  brief  account  of  his  acts,  that  he 
had  tried  to  reconcile  in  his  ministry  the  development  of  re- 
publican institutions  and  the  preservation  of  orderly  admin- 
istration. He  defended  his  various  activities:  the  com- 
missioners, the  circulars,  the  cwganization  of  the  National 
Guard  and  of  the  electoral  machinery,  the  detailed  work  of 
the  ministry,  his  conduct  on  April  16.  Ledru  blamed  any 
resort  to  plotting.     He  closed  as  follows  : 

Nothing  can  be  founded  that  is  not  based  upon  ideas.  True 
superiority^  consists  in  discerning  the  reforms  which  can 
reasonably  be  brought  about.  Today  the  hand  of  the  people 
has  torn  away  the  curtain ;  doubt  is  no  longer  possible  for  any 
one.  Alost  imprudent  and  most  culpable  is  he  who  wishes  to 
stop  the  revolution  at  the  sterile  conquest  of  political  forms. 
These  forms  are  merely  the  instruments  of  liberty  placed  in 
the  hands  of  the  people  now  called  on  to  rule  itself.     But  for 

1  Debats,  May  6.  Trelat  was  not  elected,  but  six  of  the  other  fifteen 
candidates  were.  After  the  legislative  session  Ledru  had  a  demonstra- 
tion from  a  portion  of  the  National  Guard. — Reforme,  May  5. 


323]       ^^^  ELECTIONS  OF  APRIL  TWENTY-THIRD         169 

us  the  path  is  traced;  the  goal  is  indicated.  It  is  to  realize  in 
the  social  order  the  dogmas  of  equality  and  fraternity  which 
should  guide  all  our  steps.  Sustained  by  this  noble  cause,  we 
shall  be  worthy  of  our  mission;  if  we  accept  it  in  its  entirety, 
we  shall  not  only  have  given  to  man  his  natural  dignity,  but  we 
shall  have  assured  the  glory  and  happiness  of  our  fatherland 
and  shall  have  aided  the  emancipation  of  the  world.^ 

This  brief  speech  exactly  ser\'ed  its  purpose.  On  the 
one  hand  it  was  the  discourse  of  a  minister,  advocate  of  law 
and  order;  on  the  other  hand  it  was  the  oration  of  a  pro- 
gressive, anxious  to  give  to  his  country  what  was  best  in  the 
new  ideas.  The  speech  was  well  received  by  the  Constituent 
Assembly,  and  the  applause  was  greater  than  that  given  to 
any  one  except  Lamartine.^  The  newspapers  were  divided. 
Whereas  the  Debats  thought  that  Ledru-Rollin  made  too 
many  complaints,  and  the  Presse  considered  the  speech  worse 
than  the  ministerial  harangues  of  Guizot  and  Duchatel, 
some  of  the  journals,  such  as  the  Ere  nouvelle,  were  well 
pleased  and  declared  Ledru's  language  better  than  his  re- 
putation. The  radical  newspapers,  of  course,  thought  the 
discourse  a  masterpiece. 

1  Discours  politiques  2 :  22-7.  For  extracts  see  pp.  60,  68-9,  120,  132, 
152-3.     For  notes  in  preparation  see  LR  Papers  5 :  1-9. 

*Garnier-Pages  8:419;  Spuller  64;  Stern  2:376;  Journees  illustrees 
127-9.  However,  two  witnesses  claim  that  the  speech  was  received  with 
coldness:  Beaumont-Vassy  4:258;  Corkran  s^- 


CHAPTER  XII  . 

The  Executive  Commission 

The  question  that  dominated  all  minds  in  the  Assembly 
was  the  composition  of  the  new  executive.  The  contest 
centred  about  Ledru-Rollin.  The  moderates,  who  controlled 
the  legislature,  had  definitely  decided  to  reject  Louis  Blanc, 
Albert,  and  the  socialist  element.  But  there  were  two  opin- 
ions concerning  Ledru.  Some  of  the  deputies  desired  a 
homogeneous  government  composed  solely  of  moderates; 
others  desired  to  include  a  radical  in  order  to  conciliate 
the  extreme  left.  The  former  would  probably  have  carried 
the  day  had  it  not  been  for  Lamartine.  The  poet-statesman 
refused  to  enter  any  combination  in  which  Ledru  was  not 
included.  Much  ink  has  been  wasted  in  trying  to  account 
for  this  action  of  Lamartine.  The  simplest  explanation  is 
that  Lamartine's  one  idea  throughout  this  period  was  con- 
ciliation. By  his  speeches  he  had  tried  to  conciliate  the  mob, 
and  he  had  succeeded.  By  private  conferences  he  had  tried 
to  conciliate  the  club  leaders,  and  he  believed  that  he  had 
done  much  to  put  them  in  a  better  humor  with  the  govern- 
ment. By  his  tact  he  had  tried  to  conciliate  the  warring 
elements  in  the  provisional  government,  and  he  had  suc- 
ceeded in  patching  up  quarrels  between  Francois  Arago  and 
Louis  Blanc,  between  Marrast  and  Ledru-Rollin.  For 
over  two  months  he  had  dominated  France  by  this  policy  of 
conciliation;  the  conservatives  looked  to  him  as  the  bulwark 
against  anarchy,  the  moderates  regarded  him  as  their  leader, 
the  radicals  believed  that  he  alone  could  obtain  from  the 
170  [324 


225]  THE  EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE  171 

National  Assembly  the  reforms  which  they  advocated.  Had 
he  desired  it,  he  could  have  been  elected  president  of  the  re- 
public by  an  almost  unanimous  vote.  But  ambitious  as 
Lamartine  was,  he  placed  first  the  good  of  the  country.  He 
felt  that  the  policy  of  conciliation  which  had  worked  so 
happily  until  now  must  be  continued,  must  be  maintained  at 
least  until  the  constitution  was  completed.  He  believed,  and 
he  was  right,  that  if  the  extreme  revolutionists  were  not  con- 
ciliated, they  would  rise  in  revolt.  To  obtain  their  support 
the  government  must  include  at  least  one  radical,  and  Ledru- 
Rollin  was  the  natural  choice  as  the  most  prominent  member 
of  that  party.  Besides,  Ledru  was  willing  to  adopt  Lamar- 
tine's  policy  of  conciliation.  We  have  seen  how  these  two 
men  had  gradually  come  closer  and  closer  together  in  the 
provisional  government.  Were  Ledru  in  the  new  executive, 
he  would  restrain  his  friends  and  yet  would  not  irritate  the 
conservatives  by  bringing  forward  absurd  demands.  How 
correct  Lamartine  was,  the  history  of  the  next  few  months 
shows.  Had  the  party  of  Ledru-Rollin  joined  the  revolu- 
tionists on  May  15  or  during  the  June  Days,  probably  it 
would  have  turned  the  balance  against  the  Assembly.  Lam- 
artine was  right  when  he  said  to  a  friend  on  June  23 :  "  Re- 
member this  and  repeat  it.  I  lost  my  popularity  and  pained 
all  of  you  when  I  asked  you  to  include  Ledru-Rollin  in  the 
executive  commission.  It  was  important  that  the  force  re- 
presented by  him  should  be  with  us  on  account  of  the  crisis 
I  saw  approaching.  It  is  here.  The  republic  will  triumph 
in  the  end,  I  shall  have  preserved  it  intact."  ^  So  great 
was  Lamartine's  influence  that  he  imposed  his  choice  on  the 
Assembly,  but  this  body  was  at  heart  filled  with  the  exclu- 
sive spirit  of  Marrast  and  never  forgave  Lamartine  for 
forcing  Ledru  upon  it.     Lamartine  lost  his  popularity,  the 

*Lacratelle  153.     For  discussion  of  Lamartine's  decision  see  Corkran 
•€9-72;  Falloux  1 :  315;  Normanby  i :  370-1 ;  Tocqucville  168-172. 


1 72   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [326 

Constituent  Assembly  entered  upon  a  reactionary  course 
and,  dropping  the  policy  of  conciliation,  never  stopped  until 
the  way  was  open  for  the  Caesarism  of  Napoleon  III.  A 
frank  adoption  by  the  moderates  of  Lamartine's  policy  (for 
Ledru  and  Flocon  were  ready  to  cooperate)  might  have 
established  the  republic  solidly;  its  rejection  and  the  con- 
sequent bickerings  between  the  various  shades  of  republicans 
certainly  opened  the  road  to  the  second  empire/ 

Even  before  the  Constituent  Assembly  met  there  had  been 
numerous  plans  for  an  executive.  Among  the  radicals  the 
idea  of  a  triumvirate  consisting  of  Lamartine,  Ledru-Rollin, 
and  Flocon  was  popular.  Naturally  Lamartine  was  not 
willing  to  serve  alone  with  two  radicals."  Garnier-Pages 
claims  that  there  were  five  general  schemes:  1°  a  temporary 
president  (this  would  be  Lamartine),  2°  Ministers  dir- 
ectly elected  by  the  legislature  (plan  of  the  conservatives). 
3°  President  of  the  council,  choosing  ministers,  4°  Com- 
mission of  three  or  five  (if  three  Ledru  would  probably  not 
be  included,  if  five  he  would).  5°  Continuance  in  office  of 
the  entire  provisional  government  (desired  by  the  extreme 
left).  It  was  the  second  and  fourth  of  these  plans  that 
gradually  attracted  most  support.^ 

All  the  groups  in  the  legislature  held  meetings  at  least 
once  every  day.  On  May  4  the  moderates  debated  from  ten 
to  midnight  without  reaching  any  decision.  Garnier-Pages 
was  for  the  inclusion  of  Ledru  in  the  government;  Marie, 

*A  great  deal  of  scandal  was  told  of  the  connection  between  Ledru  and 
Lamartine.  Ledru  was  supposed  to  have  Lamartine  in  his  power  be- 
cause he  had  discovered  that  the  poet  had  accepted  from  Louis  Philippe 
a  monetary  reward  for  literary  merit. — Alison  i :  588-9.  It  was  said 
that  Mme.  Ledru-iRoUin  was  the  mistress  of  Lamartine  whom  she  had 
met  only  once. — ^Circourt  Papers  516. 

^Caussidiere  2:87-8;  Quentin-Bauchart,  Lamartine  312. 

*  Garnier-Pages  9:8. 


027]  THE  EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE  1 73 

Marrast,  and  Dupont  de  I'Eure  were  violently  opposed.  The 
next  morning  Lamartine  received  two  delegates  from  this 
meeting;  he  plainly  indicated  that  he  insisted  on  the  pre- 
sence of  Ledru  in  the  executive.  Nevertheless  in  the  after- 
noon the  moderates  practically  decided  to  leave  out  their 
radical  colleague.  On  May  sixth  they  held  three  successive 
meetings  and  definitely  agreed  to  exclude  Ledru-Rollin.  A 
commission  of  Lamartine,  Arago,  and  Garnier-Pages  was 
to  be  supported;  if  Lamartine  would  not  accept  this  com- 
bination, Arago  was  to  be  proposed  as  temporary  president.^ 

In  the  meantime  the  radicals  were  equally  uncertain. 
Landrin  wrote  to  Ledru  two  letters  from  which  may  be  in- 
ferred the  hesitation  of  the  minister  of  the  interior.  He 
strongly  urged  Ledru  to  enter  the  government  with  Lamar- 
tine and  he  regretted  that  Ledru  appeared  uncertain  as  to 
what  course  to  take.  Landrin  saw  only  good  from  a  union 
to  which  Ledru  could  bring  the  support  of  the  populace  and 
Lamartine  that  of  the  legislative  majority.  Even  if  Ledru 
were  not  accepted  as  a  member  of  the  the  government  which 
was  to  be  formed,  Landrin  desired  that  Ledru  should  adopt 
a  conciliatory  policy;  only  a  threat  against  the  republican 
form  would  justly  a  resort  to  violent  means  of  opposition. 
From  the  two  letters  it  seems  that  Favre  and  Cremieux  were 
active  in  arranging  a  union  between  Ledru-Rollin  and  Lam- 
artine.^ ' 

On  May  7  more  than  four  hundred  deputies  took  part  in 
meetings  of  their  groups.  Sixty  to  eighty  deputies  of  the 
extreme  left  gathered  in  a  room  of  the  Palais  Bourbon,  the 
building  where  the  Constituent  Assembly  held  its  sessions. 
They  favored  union  and  peace,  and  they  proposed  the  main- 

1  Notes  of  Barlhelemy-St.  Hilaire  in  Rcvuc  politique  ct  parlcmcntaire 
51:318-320;  Garnier-Pages  9:8-17;   Circourt   138-140. 

'LR  Papers  1:217-9.  LeUers  were  probably  written  May  7.  For 
complete  versions  see  appendix. 


174   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [328 

tenance  of  the  entire  provisional  government.  The  moder- 
ates, who  had  the  previous  day  decided  on  the  exclusion  of 
Ledru  from  the  government,  were  again  thrown  into  a  state 
of  indecision  when  they  learned  that  Lamartine  had  defi- 
nitely refused  to  join  any  combination  in  which  Ledru- 
Rollin  Avas  not  included.  Opinion  tended  to  a  commission 
of  Arago,  Dupont,  and  Garnier-Pages.  Meanwhile  Ledru 
visited  Lamartine  and  the  two  had  a  long  conversation. 
The  morning  of  the  eighth  two  large  groups  assembled,  the 
extreme  left  imder  Trelat  and  the  moderates  under  Martin 
de  Strassbourg.  The  two  parties  agreed  to  an  executive 
composed  of  Arago,  Garnier-Pages,  iMarie,  Lamartine,  and 
Ledru-Rollin.  A  committee  headed  by  Domes  was  to  pro- 
pose this  combination  to  the  Constituent  Assembly.^ 

On  May  8  the  legislature  turned  to  the  question  of  the 
new  executive.  As  had  been  agreed  upon  in  the  morning, 
Domes  mounted  the  platform  and  moved  that  the  provi- 
sional government  deserved  well  of  the  republic  and  that  the 
National  Assembly  delegated  its  powers  to  a  commission  of 
five  members.  Amid  a  great  uproar  he  read  the  names  of 
the  five  men  selected  by  the  extreme  left  and  the  moderates. 
The  entire  right  protested  against  adding  to  a  general  measure 
concerning  the  formation  of  an  executive  the  names  of 
those  who  should  compose  it.  Everybody  was  excited  and 
expressed  his  opinion  at  the  top  of  his  voice.  Finally  Pre- 
sident Buchez  was  obliged  to  suspend  the  sitting  for  half  an 
hour.  Then  Domes  resumed,  adding  that  the  executive 
commission  should  have  the  right  to  appoint  the  ministers. 
A  vote  was  taken  on  the  first  part  of  the  proposal,  that  "  the 
provisional  government  deserved  well  of  the  country." 
Only  Barbes  and  four  of  his  friends  voted  in  the  negative. 

On  May  9  the  discussion  was  resumed.     The  conserva- 

'^Reznie  politique  ct  parlementaire  51:320-1;  Debats,  May  8,  1848; 
Gamier-Pages  9:  20-1. 


329]  ^^^  EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE  175 

tives  realized  that  if  the  Domes  scheme  were  accepted, 
Ledru-Rollin  would  be  elected  as  a  member  of  the  govern- 
ment. Accordingly  they  bent  all  their  energies  to  having 
the  legislature  elect  the  ministers  directly.  After  a  long 
debate  their  proposal  was  defeated  411  to  385.  Before  the 
discussion  could  precede  further,  a  deputy  demanded  whether 
there  had  been  any  unity  in  the  provisional  government  and 
made  a  particular  attack  on  Ledru-Rollin.  Flocon  and 
others  protested  against  this  interruption,  but  Ledru  insisted 
on  replying : 

Citizens.  ...  A  charge  has  been  made  against  me.  .  .  . 
You  are  told  that  the  provisional  government  was  not  united. 
In  the  sense  that  men,  all  animated  by  excellent  intentions, 
by  absolute  loyalty,  still  in  certain  respects  entertained  dif- 
ferent ideas  as  to  progress,  in  that  sense  alone  the  provisional 
government  was  not  united.  .  .  .  What  gave  us  our  strength? 
Our  very  diversity.  .  .  .  Which  of  our  official  acts  did  not 
receive  the  signature  of  one  and  all  of  us?  Not  once  was 
there  the  least  bitterness,  not  once  the  least  rancour,  not  once 
a  personal  attack.  There  was  complete  devotion  to  our  task 
....  for  we  were  bound  together  by  the  myriads  of  men 
without  bread  who  forgot  their  needs  to  cheer  the  republic. 
.  .  .  On  the  question  of  means  we  were  not  in  accord,  but  when 
a  decision  had  been  made,  when  the  majority  had  said  its 
last  word,  the  minority  acquiesced  and  signed  the  decree. 
.  .  .  Does  not  this  assembly  consist  of  a  majority  and  a 
minority?  .  .  .  That  very  diversity,  which  represents  all  the 
theories  of  the  moment,  makes  the  power,  the  strength,  the 
life  of  the  assembly.  It  is  in  the  name  of  independence  and 
liberty  of  conscience  that  I  protest  against  the  accusation.  It 
is  only  among  those  who  desire  to  retain  power  for  power's 
sake  ....  that  systematic  unity  is  found,  allied  to  baseness 
....  Our  consciences  feel  satisfied  at  having  remained  good 
colleagues,  at  having  remained  brothers.  I  do  not  fear  being 
contradicted  when  I  say  this;  it  is  to  that  union  that  I  invite 


1 76   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [330 

you.  .  .  .  Like  us,  forget  your  shades  of  difference;  consider 
only  the  fatherland,  the  sufferings  of  the  people,  their  intoler- 
able misery.  Be  neither  majority  nor  minority,  but  a  single 
assembly  animated  by  a  single  sentiment;  for  the  sake  of 
the  good  that  remains  to  be  done,  do  not  lose  time  in  useless 
oratory !  Do  as  we  did ;  do  better  than  we  did !  Work,  work 
for  the  sake  of  the  people !  " 

The  Assembly  applauded  Ledru  vigorously  and  the  friends 
of  the  orator  crowded  around  him  congratulating  him.^ 
Ledru' s  speech  had  an  excellent  effect  and  threw  on  the 
conservatives  the  burden  of  a  desire  for  dissension.  It  was 
eloquent  and  well-timed,  but  it  was  special  pleading.  It  was 
well  to  forget  the  internal  disagreements  in  the  government, 
but  was  it  justifiable  to  deny  them?  The  oration  is  filled 
with  exaggerations  if  not  prevarications.  The  right  tried 
hard  to  continue  the  interpellation,  but  twice  the  Assembly 
by  overwhelming  votes  refused  to  listen  to  attacks.  Most 
of  the  representatives  still  desired  harmony. 

A  modified  version  of  the  Domes  resolution,  entrusting 
the  government  to  an  executive  commission,  but  not  stating 
the  number  of  members  who  should  compose  it  was  now 
passed.  A  proposition  that  the  number  should  be  eleven 
w^as  rejected.  Finally  it  was  decided  that  the  executive 
should  be  composed  of  five  members.  It  looked  now  as 
though  the  question  were  finally  settled  and  Ledru  w^ould 
be  in  the  government  with  Lamartine,  Arago,  Garnier-Pages, 
and  Marie,  as  Domes  and  his  friends  had  arranged;  but 
still  the  moderates  debated.  In  the  evening  they  favored  the 
substitution  of  Dupont  for  Ledru.  Conversations  con- 
tinued throughout  the  night.  Everything  depended  on  Du- 
pont, the  head  of  the  late  provisional  government,  who  still 
hesitated.     It  was  not  till  ten  the  next  morning  that  Dupont 

^Moniteur  for  1848,  p.  999;  Garnier-Pages  9:  37-40. 


23 1  ]  THE  EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE  1 77 

refused  to  serve  in  the  new  executive,  and  announced  his 
decision  in  a  gathering  of  moderates.  The  success  of  the 
Domes  Hst  of  five  was  now  assured/ 

W^hen  the  Assembly  met  on  May  10,  it  immediately  set 
about  electing  the  executive  commission.  Senard  of  the 
left  centre  declared  that  the  list  of  conciliation  was  accepted 
by  all  five  of  its  members.  After  a  brief  debate,  Arago, 
Garnier- Pages,  and  Marie  were  overwhelmingly  elected; 
out  of  796  votes  cast  they  received  respectively  725,  715,  and 
702.  Lamartine  had  lost  much  of  his  popularity  by  his 
liaison  with  Ledru-Rollin ;  he  received  only  643  ballots. 
Ledru  himself  trailed  behind  with  458  (398  were  needed  to 
elect).  It  was  a  thorough  success  for  the  moderates  and  a 
great  rebuke  to  Lamartine,  who  a  week  before  had  been 
hailed  as  the  saviour  of  France." 

Immediately  after  their  election  the  members  of  the  ex- 
ecutive commission  retired  to  discuss  the  appointment  of 
ministers.  Ledru  desired  to  give  the  interior  department  to 
Trelat,  agriculture  to  Flocon,  and  to  retain  Jules  Favre  and 
Carteret.  He  was  opposed  to  giving  offices  to  Marrast, 
Recurt,  and  Pagnerre.  No  decision  was  reached  that  day 
though  the  discussion  was  renewed  in  the  evening  in  the 
presence  of  prominent  members  of  the  left.  The  next 
morning  at  ten  there  was  another  meeting  of  the  executive 
commission.  Ledru  obtained  the  ministry  of  agriculture 
for  Flocon  and  the  positions  of  under-secretaries  of  foreign 

^ Revue  politique  et  parlementairc  51:322-3;  Garnier-Pages  9:40-1; 
Bar  rot  2:  177. 

'Most  of  the  newspapers  approved  the  choice  made  for  the  executive 
commission.  On  the  eleventh  the  Reforme  declared  its  confidence  in  the 
five,  and  the  Constitutionnel  asserted  that  it  had  opposed  many  of 
Ledru's  acts  but  was  willing  to  give  him  its  confidence  now.  During  the 
session  of  the  tenth  Louis  Blanc's  suggestion  of  a  ministry  of  labor  was 
overwhelmingly  rejected;  of  the  eleven  members  of  the  provisional  gov- 
ernment only  Albert  supported  Blanc. 


I yS   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [332 

affairs  and  the  interior  for  Favre  and  Carteret  respectively. 
Caussidiere  remained  prefect  of  police,  Etienne  Arago  post- 
master-general. Trelat,  instead  of  the  department  of  the 
interior,  received  that  of  public  works.  On  other  selections 
Ledru  was  obliged  to  yield.  Pagnerre  was  made  secretary 
of  the  commission.  Marrast  retained  the  mayoralty  of 
Paris.  Recurt  received  the  interior  department.  An  agree- 
ment had  been  reached,  and  the  new  government  set  to  work 
in  harmony.  Over  the  distribution  of  other  offices  there 
was  no  trouble.  Cremieux,  Bethmont,  and  Carnot  retained 
portfolios  as  ministers  of  justice,  religion,  and  education. 
In  the  departments  of  foreign  affairs  and  finances  the  former 
assistants  Bastide  and  Duclerc  became  ministers.  The 
ministry  of  the  navy  went  to  Admiral  Casy  and  that  of  war 
to  General  Cavaignac.^ 

The  executive  commission  seems  to  have  worked  in  far 
greater  harmony  than  had  the  provisional  government. 
Albert  and  Louis  Blanc  were  not  there  to  advocate  extreme 
measures.  Absent  also  was  the  fiery  Marrast.  Ledru- 
Rollin  grew  more  conservative  the  longer  he  remained  in 
power.  Lamartine  and  Garnier- Pages  were  always  anxious 
to  be  conciliatory.  Arago  was  testy  but  easily  placated. 
•Marie  never  flared  into  a  passion.  It  was  commonly  as- 
serted that  there  were  two  parties  in  the  commission,  Lam- 
artine and  Ledru  forming  one.  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that 
these  two  men  were  more  radical  than  their  colleagues,  but 
there  is  nothing  to  show  that  differences  of  opinion  ever  went 
beyond   amicable   discussion.^ 

Arago  was  elected  president  of  the  executive  commission, 
for  the  first  month  and  was  retained  in  that  position  as 

^ Revue  politique  et  parlcmcntaire  51:323-4;  Garnier- Pages  9:42-4. 
Barthelemy-St.  Hilaire  speaks  of  the  insolent  demands  of  Ledru. 

'See  Garnier-Pages  in  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  1:284;  Gamier- 
Pages  10 :  2,  29-30;  II :  282-3. 


333]  THE  EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE  1 79 

long  as  the  executive  commission  remained  in  power.  Every 
clay  from  nine  to  eleven  the  members  of  the  commission 
worked  with  the  ministers ;  from  twelve  to  two  they  devoted 
themselves  to  police  reports ;  in  the  evening  they  held  a  gov- 
ernment council.  The  question  arose  as  to  their  attitude 
towards  the  legislature.  They  wished  to  act  as  a  unit. 
Lamartine  and  Ledru  desired  that  they  should  all  be  pre- 
sent at  every  meeting  of  the  Assembly ;  the  other  three  over- 
ruled them.  On  May  17  they  agreed  not  to  take  part  in 
votes  in  the  Assembly.^ 

The  executive  commission  was  confronted  by  a  legislature 
in  which  at  the  start  there  were  no  definite  parties.  France 
had  elected  prominent  individuals  rather  than  representa- 
tives of  definite  opinions.  Everyone  was  a  republican, 
everyone  was  for  progress.  But  soon  the  members  began 
to  split  up  into  groups.  The  conservatives  met  in  the  Rue 
de  Poitiers  under  the  presidency  of  General  Baraguey  d' 
Hilliers,  but  their  guiding  spirit  was  the  Count  de  Falloux. 
There  collected  the  entire  right :  Barrot,  Thiers,  and  the  old 
monarchists  who  had  formed  the  parliamentary  opposition 
against  Guizot ;  Montalembert  and  the  ultramontane  Cath- 
olics ;  Berryer  and  the  legitimists ;  Bugeaud  and  other  gener- 
als. The  centre  and  left  assembled  in  the  Palais  National  to 
the  number  of  some  three  hundred.  Buchez,  Marrast,  and 
Dupont  de  I'Eure  worked  in  unison  here  with  Landrin, 
Portalis,  Etienne  Arago,  and  other  supporters  of  Ledru- 
Rollin.  Lastly  there  were  about  sixty  members  of  the 
extreme  left  who  met  first  in  the  Rue  des  Pyramides,  later 
in  the  Rue  de  Castiglione.  This  group  was  composed  of 
socialists  and  such  supporters  of  Ledru-Rollin  as  Lamennais 
and  Mathieu  de  la  Drome."     The  Rue  de  Poitiers  group 

*  Gamier-Pages  9 :  79 ;   10:29;  Constitulionncl,  May   14;  Rcprcscntant 
]du  Peuple,  May  15. 

*For  accounts  of   these  groups   and   lists   of   members   see   Quentin- 


l8o   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [334 

was  steadily  in  opposition  to  the  executive  commission;  the 
Pyramides-Castiglione  group,  due  to  the  presence  of  Ledru 
and  Flocon  in  the  government,  generally  supported  it  but 
maintained  an  independent  position;  the  Palais  National 
deputies  were  the  mainstay  of  the  commission  throughout 
May  and  the  first  half  of  June,  and  when  they  abandoned  it, 
the  government  fell. 

In  July,  after  this  fall,  there  was  a  regrouping.  The 
moderates  seceded  from  the  Palais  National  and  founded  a 
club  of  their  own  at  the  Institute.  Landrin  and  his  friends 
united  with  the  deputies  of  the  Rue  de  Castiglione  to  form 
a  new  club  in  the  Rue  de  Taitbout,  commonly  known  as 
the  Mountain.  Ledru  became  a  member  of  this  group; 
like  the  other  members  of  the  executive  commission  dur- 
ing their  tenure  of  office,  he  had  previously  belonged  to 
none.^ 

Bauchart  Report  2:250-260;  Constitutionnel,  July  16,  1848;  Debats,  July 
13,  16,  25;  Gamier-Pages  10:44-50;  Babaud-Laribiere  1:44-9;  Stern 
3:67-8;  Castille  3:8-9;  Spuller  104-5;  Journees  ilhistrees  167;  Curtis  65; 
Bouniols  298;  Gradis  2:  53-5;  167-8,  176. 

'  Still  later  Landrin  and  his  friends  abandoned  the  Rue  de  Taitbout 
when  that  group  became  too  revolutionary;  they  composed  the  left 
proper  of  the  Assembly.  Again,  some  time  after  this,  Flocon  and  a  few 
followers  also  resigned ;  they  were  the  independent  members  of  the 
extreme  left.  In  the  organization  of  committees  in  the  legislature 
Ledru-Rollin  chose  that  for  Algeria. — Debats,  May  26,  1848. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

The  Fifteenth  of  May 

On  May  15  a  mob  invaded  the  Assembly  and  tried  to  dis- 
solve it.  It  is  hard  to  decide  who  were  responsible  for  this 
attack  upon  the  legislature.  A  crowd  had  gathered  with 
the  ostensible  aim  of  holding  a  peaceable  demonstration  and 
presenting  a  petition  to  the  deputies  in  favor  of  aid  to 
Poland.  Probably  a  few  club  leaders  like  Huber  desired  an 
insurrection  and  carried  the  mob,  and  finally  even  Barbes 
and  Albert,  with  them.  Ledru  believed  that  "  most  of  the 
people  who  invaded  the  legislative  hall  had  as  their  purpose 
to  bring  there  a  petition  and  read  it  at  the  bar."  He  claimed 
that  the  chief  organizers  of  the  demonstration  and  the  sole 
instigators  to  insurrection  were  the  monarchists,  particularly 
the  Bonapartists ;  that  Blanqui  and  Raspail,  leaders  of  the 
extreme  revolutionists,  had  desired  a  forcible  entry  into  the 
Palais  Bourbon  but  no  uprising;  that  Barbes  had  taken  no 
part  in  the  organization  of  the  demonstration  but  was  carried 
away  by  the  force  of  events,  deeply  moved  at  the  sight  of 
the  poverty-stricken  crowd.'^  Ledru  himself  has  been  ac- 
cused of  plotting  the  overthrow  of  his  colleagues,  but  this 
is  absurd.  The  radical  orator  might  have  striven  to  over- 
throw a  provisional  government,  but  it  was  contrary  to  his 
every  belief  and  theory  to  take  measures  against  the  elect  of 
the  people  unless  a  fundamental  right  were  violated.     The 

*  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  i :  311 ;  Barbes  trial  in  R6forme,  March  21, 
1849;  Voix  du  Proscrit  2:43;  speech  of  June  3,  1874,  in  Dlscnurs 
poUtiques  2:  480-1. 

335]  181 


1 82    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOXD  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [336 

sole  basis  for  the  charge  is  that  his  name  was  on  various 
hsts  for  a  new  government,  but  that  was  not  his  fault.  His 
conduct  throughout  the  day  was  unimpeachable/ 

At  nine  in  the  morning  of  May  15  the  members  of  the 
executive  commission  assembled  at  the  Luxembourg.  They 
had  been  informed  the  previous  day  of  what  was  coming, 
but  they  believed  that  the  demonstration  would  be  a  peace- 
ful one.  Nevertheless,  orders  that  all  needful  precautions 
be  taken  were  given  to  Caussidiere  and  to  General  Courtais, 
commander  of  the  National  Guard,  who  was  given  supreme 
control."  About  ten-thirty  Longepied  and  some  fellow- 
members  of  the  Club  des  Clubs  called  at  the  Luxembourg; 
they  feared  that  the  manifestation  might  become  hostile  to 
the  government  and  invade  the  Palais  Bourbon,  and  they 
offered  to  circulate  through  the  crowd  and  do  their  best  to 
restrain  it.  Francois  Arago  encouraged  them  in  their  pur- 
pose, and  Ledru-Rollin  gave  them  a  pass  to  the  Assembly 
building.  Longepied  arrived  there  too  late  to  stop  the  in- 
vasion and  proceeded  to  the  Hotel  de  Ville  in  order  to  tr}^ 
to  prevent  the  recognition  of  an  insurrectionar}^  government. 
There  he  was  arrested,  but  he  was  soon  set  at  liberty  by 
Ledru-Rollin.^ 

The  five  members  of  the  executive  commission  then  in 
session  at  the  Luxembourg  decided  to  separate,  Arago  and 

^  For  accusations,  see  Falloux  i :  322-3 ;  Chamier  267-298. 

^  Momteur  for  1848,  p.  1051 ;  Ledru  at  Barbes  trial  in  Moniteur  for 
1849,  pp.  947-8 ;  Caussidiere  in  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  i :  144.  Dupoty, 
an  editor  of  the  Re  forme,  had  written  to  Ledru  and  Landrin  urging 
the  arrest  of  Blanqui. — Reforme,  November  13,  1848. 

^  Ledru  in  speech  of  August  3,  1848.  Discours  politiques  2:46-7; 
Longepied,  Delaire,  and  police-agent  Picot  in  Quentin-Bauchart  Report 
1:316,  272,  133;  Longepied  129;  Wassermann  173-185;  Garnier-Pages 
9:  147;  Dupoty  in  Reforme,  November  13,  1848.  The  only  reason  that 
the  Quentin-Bauchart  Committee  of  Investigation  gave  to  reject  Longe- 
pied's  p^icific  motives  was  that  after  his  interview  with  Arago  and  Ledru 
he  ate  lunch  before  proceeding  to  the  Palais  Bourbon. 


237]  THE  FIFTEEXTH  OF  MAY  183 

Garnier-Pages  remaining  at  the  Luxembourg,  the  other 
three  setting  out  for  the  National  Assembly.  They  had 
already  given  the  command  to  beat  the  rappel,  and  they  had 
ordered  General  Courtais  to  guard  the  vital  Pont  de  la  Con- 
corde which  separated  the  Palais  Bourbon  from  the  Made- 
leine where  the  procession  of  petitioners  was  gathered. 
The  General  had  failed  to  carry  out  this  order  and  thus  the 
mob  was  able  to  approach  the  building  where  the  legislature 
sat.  When  Marie  and  Ledru  arrived  at  the  Pont  de  la 
Concorde  to  insist  on  its  occupation,  the  bridge  had  already 
been  crossed.^ 

The  Assembly  had  met  at  noon  as  usual,  and  there  was  a 
large  attendance  as  the  ministers  were  to  be  interpellated 
concerning  foreign  affairs.  Bastide  and  Lamartine  had  de- 
fended their  Italian  policy,  and  Wolowski  had  just  brought 
up  the  Polish  question  when  the  noise  of  an  approaching 
crowd  was  heard.  Lamartine,  Ledru,  and  Marie  hastened 
to  the  courtyard.  The  building  was  surrounded  by  a  huge 
crowd  which  refused  to  listen  to  Lamartine  and  listened 
without  enthusiasm  to  Ledru  who  tried  to  calm  it.  The 
deputies  returned  to  the  Assembly  hall.  Albert  declared 
that  if  delegates  of  the  mob  were  not  admitted,  a  calamity 
would  occur.  On  the  advice  of  Ledru  and  Marrast  this  was 
agreed  to.  Ledru  and  Lamartine  returned  to  the  gate  with 
President  Buchez,  but  the  mob  had  already  climbed  over. 
Nothing  could  be  done  to  stop  them."  Ledru's  account  is  as 
follows :  "  During  this  time  the  people  grew  impatient  and 
when  I  returned,  twenty-five  or  thirty  persons  had  climbed 
the  gate.  There  was  a  cry  to  let  the  delegates  enter;  the 
gate  was  opened  and  the  people  rushed  in.     I  do  not  know 

^  Moniteur  for  1848,  p.  1051;  Barjaud,  Garnicr-Pagcs,  and  Marie  at 
Barbes  trial  in  Monitetir  for  1849,  pp.  986,  1078;  Garnier-Pages  9: 151. 

'  Euchez,  and  Garnier-Pages  at  Barbes  trial,  Monitcur  for  1S4Q,  pp. 
-829,  1079;  Lamartine  2:278;  Malludc  in  Qucntin-Bauchart  Report  1:82. 


1  §4   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AXD  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [338 

whether  you  have  ever  seen  the  people  take  a  mihtary  pc^t 
by  assault ;  iron  bars  are  playthings  in  their  hands ;  nothing 
can  resist  them."  ^ 

The  mob  invaded  the  assembly  hall.  The  deputies  were 
indignant.  Ledru-Rollin,  Louis  Blanc,  Barbes  showed  by 
their  countenances  and  their  gestures  as  much  affliction  as 
the  members  of  the  right.  Louis  Blanc  demanded  silence 
out  of  respect  for  the  right  of  petition.  Raspail,  encour- 
aged by  some  representatives,  amid  the  protests  of  others, 
read  the  plea  for  Poland.  Then  President  Buchez  told  the 
mob  that  now  that  their  petition  had  been  heard  they  should 
retire.  Raspail  shouted  energetically  "  Those  who  do  not 
retire  are  not  good  republicans."  But  Huber  insisted  on 
the  procession  marching  past  through  the  assembly  hall. 
Barbes  now  mounted  the  platform.  Amid  cheers  he  spoke  in 
favor  of  Poland,  but  urged  the  people  to  leave  the  hall. 
His  words  were  having  some  effect  when  the  sound  of  the 
rappel  was  heard  outside.  The  mob  became  frantic.  To 
gain  time  Buchez  sent  a  counter-order  to  stop  the  rappel, 
knowing  that  this  counter-order  would  arrive  too  late  to 
have  any  effect.  Blanqui  made  a  plea  for  Poland,  but  soon 
began  a  series  of  violent  digressions  which  had  no  bearing 
on  the  subject. 

Ledru-Rollin  had  been  exerting  himself  to  reach  the  tri- 
bune, and  at  last  (it  was  about  half  past  two)  he  achieved 
his  object.     He  said : 

Citizens,  I  speak  here  not  as  a  member  oof  the  executive 
power,  for  I  have  not  consulted  with  my  colleagues ;  I  speak 
as  a  citizen,  as  a  deputy.  .  .  .  You  have  expressed  your  desire 
....  that  swayed  by  the  feeling  of  fraternity  France  should 
extend  its  hand  to  the  people  of  Poland.  {Hurrah  for 
Poland!)     Certainly    the    chord    that    stirs    your    heart    stirs 

^/fei(f.,  947-8.  See  also  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  1 :  311.  For  Ledru's 
exculpation  of  Albert,  see  Barbes  trial  in  Reforme,  March  21,  1849. 


339]  ^^-E  FIFTEENTH  OF  MAY  185 

ours  also.  .  .  .  You  have  asked  that  measures  be  taken  so 
that  the  people  may  live  by  labor.  (A  ministry  of  labor!) 
Finally  you  ask  that  the  rappcl  should  not  be  beaten.  {Yes, 
yes!  On  April  16,  you  betrayed  the  people!  You  have  boasted 
of  having  sounded  the  rap  pel!)  In  the  revolution  of  February 
you  gave  a  proof  of  your  wisdom,  of  your  prudence.  {Inter- 
ruptions.) With  that  admirable  good  sense  that  characterizes 
the  people  of  Paris  who  will  not  be  deceived,  {A  ministry  of 
labor!)  With  that  admirable  good  sense  that  characterizes 
the  people  of  Paris  who  wish  guarantees  and  who  at  the  same 
time  perfectly  comprehend  the  sentiments  of  justice  and  ex- 
pediency, you  can  understand  that  it  is  impossible  for  an  as- 
sembly to  deliberate  in  your  presence;  to  deliberate  thus 
would  ruin  its  authority.  {It  deliberated  February  24!)  I 
demand  that  the  Assembly  decree  a  permanent  session,  but  at 
the  same  time  I  demand  that  you  retire  beyond  the  threshold. 
{Yes,  yes!  No,  no!)  ^ 

This  address  was  hardly  heard  beyond  the  radius  of  a  few 
yards,  and  even  where  it  was  heard,  as  the  interruptions 
show,  it  was  badly  received.  The  insurrection  had  passed 
far  beyond  the  radicalism  of  Ledru-Rollin.  Pandemonium 
reigned.  Several  proletarians  threatened  the  president. 
One  tried  to  clear  out  the  tribune  with  the  staff  of  his  flag, 
but  Raspail  seized  it  and  broke  it,  slightly  injuring  Ledru 
who  was  standing  beside  him."  Two  representatives  even 
urged  Ledru  to  "  take  the  presidency  if  only  to  save  us 
from  anarchy."  But  Ledru  replied :  "I  would  rather  die  for 
right  and  duty,  would  rather  let  myself  be  cut  in  pieces 
than  violate  for  one  instant  the  rights  of  the  National  As- 
sembly." ^     President  Buchez  declared  the  session  at  an  end. 

'  Moniteur  1060. 

*  Ledru  at  Barbes  trial,  Moniteur  for  lS4(),  pp.  947-8,  and  Reforinc, 
March  21,  1849.    There  are  several  variant  versions  of  this  incident. 

^  Speech  of  Ledru  on  August  3,  1848,  Discours  foUtiqucs  2 :  47.  Cf. 
Quentin-Bauchart  Report  1:311. 


l86   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [340 

Raspail  and  others  still  tried  to  induce  the  mob  to  retire,  but 
Huber  and  his  friends  continued  the  disorder.  Huber  even 
declared  the  legislature  dissolved.  Finally  the  cry  arose: 
To  the  Hotel  de  Ville!  Barbes,  Albert,  and  a  large  part  of 
the  crowd  set  out  to  go  thither;  Louis  Blanc  was  carried  off 
in  the  arms  of  the  people,  but  he  escaped  at  the  first  op- 
portunity. 

Ledru,  seeing  that  he  could  do  nothing  in  the  assembly 
hall  and  fearing  lest  the  mob  should  try  and  force  him  to 
join  them,  had  gone  into  the  courtyard.  There,  he  says, 
"  I  was  met  and  surrounded  by  men  who  wished  to  conduct 
me  to  the  city  hall.  I  declared  that  I  would  never  be  carried 
there  alive.  I  even  drew  a  pistol  with  which  to  shoot 
myself  in  case  the  violence  towards  me  did  not  cease."  ^ 
Ledru  retired  to  the  apartment  of  the  concierge.  There 
he  was  found  by  a  group  of  a  hundred  loyal  citizens  who 
wished  him  to  head  them  in  an  attack  on  the  insurgents. 
He  was  in  a  state  of  extreme  agitation  and  explained  the 
necessity  of  awaiting  at  least  one  of  his  colleagues  before 
acting.  But  Ledru  despatched  one  of  the  citizens  to  the 
Hotel  de  Ville  with  the  following  verbal  message :  "  Order 
the  commandant  to  hold  firm,  to  maintain  order  as  best  he 
can,  to  avoid  the  shedding  of  blood.  Inform  him  that,  dead 
or  alive,  the  executive  commission  will  arrive  at  the  Hotel 
de  Ville  at  exactly  half  past  five.  H  it  is  impossible  for 
me  to  join  any  of  my  colleagues,  I  shall  go  alone,  I  give  you 
my  word  of  honour."  AVith  great  difficulty  the  messenger 
delivered  this  promise."  Another  similar  communication 
was  sent  to  the  headquarters  of  the  National  Guard.^ 

^  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  1:311.  Cf.  Ledru  at  Barbes  trial,  Moni- 
teur  for  1849,  p.  947;  Garnier-Pages  9:238;  Barrot  2:195;  Robin  2: 
295 ;  Lamartine  2 :  286.  Stern  3 :  46-8  gives  an  elaborate  but  improbable 
account  of  this  adventure. 

*  Franqois,  who  vv^as  the  messenger,  in  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  i : 
209-210. 

'  Hutheau  d'Orign}'  at  Barbes  trial,  Momteur  for  1849,  p.  986. 


I 


241  ]  THE  FIFTEENTH  OF  MAY  1 8/ 

Meanwhile  the  assembly  hall  was  cleared  of  insurgents 
by  the  National  Guard,  who  had  collected  at  the  sound  of 
the  rappel,  and  a  little  before  five  o'clock  the  session  was  re- 
sumed. Lamartine  entered  and  was  received  with  cheers. 
He  mounted  the  tribune  and  declared  that  it  was  time  to  act, 
not  talk,  that  the  entire  county  was  with  him  in  putting  down 
this  revolt  of  a  small  faction.  Ledru  had  been  standing 
near  the  orator;  he  was  asked  to  speak  but  remarked:  "  It 
is  not  worth  while."  ^  The  two  members  of  the  executive 
commission  then  set  off  for  the  Hotel  de  Ville  accompanied 
by  several  deputies  and  by  a  part  of  the  National  Guard." 

The  escort  grew  as  it  proceeded,  cheering  frantically  for 
the  government  When  they  got  near  the  city  hall,  says 
Ledru,  "  M.  de  Lamartine  was  separated  from  me  by  a  group 
and  at  that  instant  the  National  Guard  shouted:  There 
will  he  Uring  from  the  zvindoivs.  I  advanced  and  cried : 
All  the  better;  I  shall  die  for  right  and  the  republic."  ^ 

The  insurgents,  after  leaving  the  Palais  Bourbon,  had 
marched  to  the  Hotel  de  Ville  and  had  entered  it.  They 
had  ordered  Mayor  Marrast  to  surrender  his  power  to  them, 
but  the  latter  had  refused,  and  therefore  two  antagonistic 
governments  existed  side  by  side  in  different  halves  of  the 
city  hall.  When  Lamartine  and  Ledru  arrived  with  their 
troops,  they  easily  overpowered  the  insurrection  and  arrested 
the  revolutionists.  After  taking  all  necessary  measures  for 
the  safety  of  Paris  in  concert  with  Marrast,  Ledru  and 
Lamartine  returned  to  the  Assembly  through  crowds  that 
impeded  their  progress.* 

'  Lagrange,  ibid.,  828. 

2  "  I  mounted  on  horseback  with  M.  dc  Lamartine ;  I  did  not  even  have 
a  hat,"  says  Ledru  in  Qucntin-Bauchart  Report  i :  311. 

'Speech  of  August  3  in  Discours  politiques  2:47.  Cf.  Quentin- 
Bauchart  Report  1:311;  Republique,  May  18. 

*  Ledru  at  Barbes  trial,  Moniteur  for  1849,  p.  947;  Huthcau  d'Origny, 
ibid.,  986;  Lamartine  2:292-3;  Garnier-Pagcs  9:261. 


1 88   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [342 

^Meanwhile  the  Assembly  had  continued  its  session,  Usten- 
ing  to  reports  as  to  the  quelling  of  the  insurrection  and 
arrest  of  the  leaders,  proposing  drastic  mesures  against  all 
who  were  suspected  of  a  part  in  the  revolt.  It  refused  to 
listen  to  Louis  Blanc,  who  desired  to  prove  his  own  in- 
nocence. Garnier-Pages  gave  an  account  of  how  the  ex- 
ecutive commission  had  conducted  itself.  Lamartine  re- 
turned Avith  Ledru  and  told  what  they  had  done.  Marie 
declared  that  the  government  must  retire  and  the  session 
was  closed  after  voting  that  the  National  Guard  had  de- 
served well  of  the  country. 

During  the  evening  of  this  crowded  day  Ledru,  Lamar- 
tine, and  some  companions  went  to  see  General  Courtais 
who  had  been  imprisoned,  for  they  believed  him  merely  in- 
capable not  culpable.^  At  two  o'clock  in  the  morning  Caus- 
sidiere  appeared  before  the  provisional  government.  He 
made  a  bold  defence  of  his  conduct  during  the  day  and, 
enumerated  his  services  to  the  republic.  First,  all  the 
members  of  the  executive  commission  had  been  inclined  to 
dismiss  the  prefect  of  police,  but  after  Caussidiere  had 
spoken,  only  Arago  and  Marie  cast  their  ballots  for  dis- 
missal." But  Caussidiere  soon  realized  that  it  would  after 
all  be  best  to  resign,  and  the  next  day  his  resignation  was 
accepted.  In  his  place  was  appointed  Trouve-Chauvel,  the 
prominent  citizen  of  Le  Mans  who  had  obtained  Ledru's 
election  under  the  July  monarchy  and  his  rejection  in  the 
recent  election.  The  Liberte  declared  that  Ledru  showed 
his  colleagues  a  letter  which  he  had  received  from  Trouve- 
Chauvel,  in  which  the  latter  had  explained  that  he  could  no 
longer  support  the  author  of  the  March  circular  and  of  the 

*  Ledru  at  Barbes  trial,  Moniteur  for  i84g,  p.  947;  Garnier-Pages  9: 
298. 

'Caussidiere  2:  140,  150-1;  Favre  in  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  1:280; 
Garnier-Pages  9 :  290-3 ;  Stern  3 :  60-1. 


243]  THE  FIFTEENTH  OF  MAY  1 89 

policies  it  represented.  "  This  letter  ....  caused  the  ap- 
pointment of  M.  Trouve-Chauvel  ....  if  this  incident  is 
true,  M.  Ledru-Rollin  has  nobly  avenged  himself  ....  and 
shown  the  moderate  tendencies  of  his  ideas."  ^ 

Many  revolutionists  had  been  arrested  on  May  15  and 
many  others  were  suspected  of  having  abetted  the  move- 
ment. Portalis,  the  attorney-general,  and  Landrin,  the 
district-attorney,  desired  to  have  Louis  Blanc  and  Caussi- 
diere  prosecuted,  and  they  believed  that  they  had  received 
the  consent  of  the  executive  commission  for  this  through 
Cremieux,  minister  of  justice.  In  this  they  were  mistaken; 
Ledru  had  strenuously  opposed  such  action.  "  When  the 
arrest  of  Louis  Blanc  and  Caussidiere  was  demanded,"  he 
said  later,  "  I  examined  the  evidence  carefully.  Speaking 
as  a  jurist,  I  must  say  that  nothing  could  justify  in  my  eyes 
a  condemnation  which  I  also  opposed  for  political  reasons. 
As  Portalis  and  Landrin  insisted,  I  asked  the  dismissal  of 
the  attorney-general.  The  authority  to  prosecute  was  re- 
fused." "  On  May  31  the  formal  demand  for  permission 
to  prosecute  was  made  in  the  legislature,  all  the  members  of 
the  executive  commission  being  present  except  Ledru.  On 
June  3  Favre  reported  for  the  committee  to  whom  the  re- 
quest had  been  submitted,  in  favor  of  prosecution.  But 
many  oratfDrs  spoke  for  the  accused.  Marrast  made  one  of 
his  belated  explanations;  he  admitted  his  mistake  in  be- 
lieving that  he  had  seen  Louis  Blanc  at  the  Hotel  de  Ville. 
The  government  did  not  support  the  demand  for  permission 
to  prosecute.  Accordingly  the  Assembly  by  a  small  majority 
rejected  the  motion.  Two  days  later  there  were  violent  ac- 
cusations and  counter-accusations  in  the  legislature ;  Landrin, 
Portalis,  and  Favre  vs.  Cremieux  and  Flocon.     The  first 

'  Liberie,  May  20. 

'  Barbc-s  trial  in  Reformc,  March  21,  1849.    No  deputy  could  be  prose- 
cuted without  permission  from  the  .Assembly. 


igo   LEDRU-ROLLIX  AXD  SECOND  FREXCH  REPUBLIC    [344 

three  named  resigned  their  positions  and  became  the  deter- 
mined opponents  of  the  government.  Cremieux,  though 
supported  by  his  superiors,  also  felt  it  necessary  to  hand  in 
his  resignation.  The  events  of  May  15  had  been  the  first 
blow  to  the  executive  commission,  for  it  had  shown  its  in- 
capacity in  defending  the  capital.  This  dispute  was  the 
second  blow,  revealing  a  split  in  the  government  itself. 
For  daA's  baseless  rumors  circulated  that  Ledru,  Lamartine, 
even  Garnier-Pages  had  resigned.^ 

The  weakness  of  the  executive  on  May  15  made  clear  the 
necessity  for  a  definition  of  its  powers  so  that  it  might  know 
Avhat  action  it  could  take  in  case  another  riot  were  threatened. 
The  government  had  drawn  up  a  bill  defining  the  relations 
of  the  executive  to  the  legislature.  The  committee  to  whom 
the  government  draft  had  been  submitted  had  made  a  few 
modifications  and  there  Avas  much  discussion  on  these  minor 
points.  The  greatest  difference  of  opinion  arose  over  the 
question  as  to  whether  the  commision  should  have  the  right 
to  sound  the  rap  pel  or  whether  this  privilege  should  be  en- 
trusted only  to  the  president  of  the  Assembly.  Ledru  was 
the  government  spokesman.  He  declared  that  he  saw  no 
fundamental  changes  in  the  modifications.  He  insisted  that 
the  executive  power  must  be  strong;  he  blamed  the  con- 
servatives for  wishing  to  refuse  the  commission  a  necessary 
power  because  they  disliked  those  who  would  exercise  it. 
"  Distinguish  between  men  and  the  offices  they  hold.  I 
have  attacked  men;  I  have  never  attacked  their  offices. 
What  I  wished  as  a  member  of  the  opposition,  I  wish  today 
as  a  member  of  the  government.  ...  I  repeat :  What  is 
necessary  is  a  strong  government  that  it  may  arouse  the 

^Police  report  in  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  2:199;  Constitutionnel, 
Opinion  piihlique,  Organisation  du  Travail,  Prcsse,  June  7;  Courier  de 
la  Chambre,  Esprit  national,  Organisation  du  Travail,  June  8;  Bonnet 
Rouge,  June  11. 


245]  T^^  FIFTEEXTH  OF  MAY  I91 

country  and  be  effective  abroad/'  Ledru  accepted  the 
modifications  of  the  committee  as  they  did  not  weaken  the 
government;  were  it  otherwise,  he  and  his  colleagues  could 
not  remain  in  power/  This  speech  was  will  received. 
]Marie  made  a  similar  oration,  emphasizing  the  need  for 
unity  in  command,  and  Lamartine  supported  his  colleagues 
the  next  day.  The  executive  commission  was  granted  the 
right  to  sound  the  rappel  and  the  amended  draft  was  passed 
almost  unanimously.  It  was  neither  a  victory  nor  a  defeat 
for  the  government. 

To  prevent  further  riots  the  executive  commission  in- 
troduced a  stringent  law  against  public  meetings,  which 
Marie  guided  through  the  legislature  and  in  favor  of  which 
he  obtained  an  overwhelming  vote.  It  was  rumored  that 
Lamartine  and  Ledru  did  not  approve  this  law,"  but  as  a 
matter  of  fact  the  draft  had  been  approved  unanimously  by 
the  government.^  The  executive  commission  also  con- 
sidered measures  for  regulating  the  press.  Ledru  later  said : 
"  On  June  22  I  presented  to  the  executive  commission  a  bill 
that  rejected  financial  deposits  (caufionnement)  by  news- 
papers and  which  established  moral  responsibility  by  signa- 
ture; it  was  accepted  by  all  the  members  ....  and  had  it 
not  been  for  the  events  of  June  24  it  would  have  been  pre- 
sented to  the  legislature."  * 

'  Disc  ours  politiqiics  2  :  28-32. 
'  Corkran  141. 


'  Corkran  141. 

*  Garnier-Pages  in  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  i :  284. 

■•  Speech  of  August  3,  Discours  politiques  2 :  54. 


CHAPTER  XIV 
The  June  Days 

After  May  15  monarchists  and  ultra-revolutionists  con- 
tinued their  public  agitation.  The  scurrilous  newspaper  of 
the  extremists,  the  Pere  Duchene,  planned  a  great  demon- 
stration for  Sunday,  June  11,  in  the  form  of  a  banquet 
under  the  walls  of  Vincennes  prison  where  were  incarcerated 
those  arrested  on  May  15.  Lamartine  and  Ledru  desired 
to  remove  the  prisoners;  Arago,  Marie,  and  Garnier- Pages 
considered  a  concentration  of  troops  in  the  vicinity  the 
wisest  measure.  All  precautions  were  needless,  for  the 
banquet  was  abandoned.^ 

Trouble  was  feared  from  the  National  Workshops.  When 
the  establishment  of  a  ministry  of  labor  had  been  refused 
to  Louis  Blanc,  Marie,  minister  of  public  works,  had  opened 
up  workshops  where  manual  labor  was  given  to  all  work- 
ingmen  out  of  a  position.  The  scheme  was  fundamentally 
opposed  to  Louis  Blanc's  principles,  and  neither  he  nor 
Ledru-Rollin  had  any  direct  connection  with  the  Workshops. 
Their  head,  Emile  Thomas,  was  an  avowed  partisans  of  the 
moderates."  Under  the  provisional  government  Marie  had 
tried  to  use  the  Workshops  as  a  force  against  the  radicals. 
But  so  large  had  they  grown  that  it  was  impossible  to  find 

'^Esprit  national,  June  8;  Organisation  du  Travail,  June  9,  1848. 

-  Thomas  i :  352-3.  Higonnet,  the  organizer  of  the  first  attempt  at 
National  Workshops,  was  "  imposed  on  us  by  Ledru-Rollin,"  says 
Thomas  40;  this  was  the  only  mention  of  Ledru's  connection  made  by 
Thomas  in  his  volume  on  the  Workshops. 

192  [346 


347]  'I'HE  JUNE  DAYS  193 

any  work  for  most  of  those  enrolled  and  the  financial  burden 
upon  the  state  was  becoming  oppressive.  Trelat,  who  suc- 
ceeded Marie  as  tiinister,  planned  out  carefully  the  dissolu- 
tion of  the  huge  establishment  at  Paris,  and  he  urged  that 
the  government  undertake  various  enterprises  in  the  depart- 
ments as  a  way  of  giving  employment  to  a  good  many 
laborers.  Trelat  was  a  philanthropic  physician  but  not  an 
able  statesman,  and  his  measures  for  closing  the  Workshops 
were  not  of  the  wisest;  but  they  were  vastly  better  than 
those  of  the  wily  legitimist,  Falloux,  chairman  of  the  legis- 
lative committee  on  labor.  Falloux  during  June  urged  on 
the  premature  closing  of  the  Workshops  and  prevented  any 
adequate  measures  of  relief.  Ledru  believed  that  Falloux 
wilfully  fomented  disorder  in  the  working  classes  in  order 
to  overthrow  the  republic.^  Falloux  was  quite  capable  of 
this,  but  it  is  more  likely  that  the  conservatives  were  simply 
anxious  above  all  to  close  the  Workshops,  which  they  feared 
as  centres  of  disorder,  and  that  they  were  willing  to  face  any 
consequences  that  might  result  from  such  action.  Cer- 
tainly the  rumors  of  the  premature  dissolution  were  the 
occasion  for  the  bloody  June  Days,  and  the  act  dissolving 
them  was  passed  at  Falloux's  suggestion  during  the  insurrec- 
tion. The  following  was  Ledru's  opinion  on  Trelat's 
schemes :  "  The  National  Workshops  were  the  most  serious 
preoccupation  of  the  government.  About  May  20  the  deci- 
sion was  taken  to  close  them.  In  that  respect  all  the 
measures  which  human  prudence  demanded  were  taken,  but 
all  the  orders  were  not  strictly  executed."  "  In  1849  he 
said :  "  The  National  Workshops  existed.  The  executive 
commission  planned  to  dissolve  them;  but  while  avoiding 
the  danger  of  their  existence,  it  did  not  wish  to  expose  men 

*  Voix  du  Proscrit  2  :  43-4. 

*  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  i :  312. 


I Q^.   LEDR  U-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  RE  ?  UBLIC    [ 348 

to  Starvation.  Accordingly  the  workingmen  were  to  be  sent 
to  various  parts  of  the  country  where  they  might  find  bread 
and  work."  ^ 

The  monarchists  also  were  scheming  {or  the  return  of 
their  various  candidates  to  the  throne.  Most  active  were 
the  Bonapartists.  According  to  Garnier-Pages,  they  even 
approached  Ledru-Rollin.  A  follower  of  Louis  Napoleon, 
who  was  grateful  to  Ledru  for  some  past  actions,  urged  him 
to  join  the  party  which  would  soon  grasp  power.  Ledru 
replied :  "  If  I  did  not  know  you  and  if  I  were  not  restrained 
by  the  confidential  character  of  your  proceeding,  I  should 
have  you  arrested  immediately  as  a  plotter."  - 

The  question  of  Louis  Napoleon  Bonaparte  was  one  that 
vexed  the  executive  commission  sorely.  Twice  under  Louis 
Philippe  this  pretender  had  attempted  to  seize  the  crown. 
To  the  republic  he  had  sent  an  offer  of  service,  but  his  sup- 
porters were  constantly  weaving  plots  in  his  behalf.  His 
complicity  in  them  cannot  be  proved,  but  it  is  not  unlikely 
that  he  favored  them  even  if  he  did  not  actually  take  part  in 
their  preparation.  He  had  been  elected  to  the  Constituent 
Assembly  in  four  departments,  but  there  was  a  law  upon 
the  statute  books  exiling  all  members  of  the  Bonaparte 
family  from  France.  The  government  had  not  enforced 
this  law  in  the  case  of  three  of  his  cousins,  but  they  were 
not  pretenders.  What  was  to  be  the  official  attitude  toward 
the  head  of  the  family?  The  government  was  unanimous 
against  allowing  him  to  return  to  France,  and  it  had  sent 
orders  for  his  arrest  if  he  should  attempt  to  cross  the  fron- 
tier.^ His  colleagues  approved  when  Ledru-Rollin  said  at 
a  council  meeting : 

^  Delescluze  trial   in   Revolution  detnocratiqtie   et  sociale,   IMarch    13, 
1849. 
*  Gamier-Pages  11 :  95. 
3  Garnier-Pages  10:  191-3.    Castellane  4:  179  writes:  "In  June,  1848,  a 


349]  THE  JUNE  DAYS  195 

We  must  be  energetic  or  all  will  be  lost.  All  information  I 
have  received  shows  the  hand  of  Louis  Napoleon  at  the  bottom 
of  these  demagogic  conspiracies.  Do  not  have  such  contempt 
for  the  little  man  with  the  half-closed  eyes.  .  .  .  An  incurable 
Catiline,  he  makes  a  small  group  of  conservatives  believe  that 
he  is  the  friend  of  order.  ,  .  .  Question  even  his  cousins  .  .  . 
and  if  they  are  in  a  frank  mood,  they  will  tell  you  that  in 
matters  of  rascality  he  can  always  find  a  new  twist.  I  ask 
to  be  allowed  to  arrest  him.^ 

The  Bonapartist  question  came  before  the  Assembly  first 
on  June  12  in  connection  with  an  appropriation  for  100,000 
francs.  Lamartine  took  the  floor  to  debate  the  financial 
question,  but  soon  a  few  scattered  shots  were  heard  outside 
the  building.  Lamartine  went  out  to  inquire  what  had 
happened;  w^hen  he  returned,  he  launched  forth  upon  a  dra- 
matic account  of  a  Bonapartist  uprising  in  which  Clement 
Thomas,  the  commander  of  the  National  Guard,  had  been 
fired  upon.  He  demanded  a  decree  specifically  exiling  the 
Napoleonic  pretender.  This  was  the  last  of  Lamartine's 
great  oratorical  triumphs.  The  house  was  swept  by  enthu- 
siasm. In  vain  various  orators  rose  to  speak  in  opposition 
to  Lamartine.  The  appropriation  was  passed  by  569  votes 
to  112.  Lamartine  had  gained  a  glorious  vote  of  confidence 
for  the  executive  commission." 

When  the  question  of  the  admission  of  the  pretender  to 
the  Constituent  Assembly  came  up  for  discussion  the  next 
day,  the  intoxication  of  Lamartine's  eloquence  had  vanished. 

certain  prefect  received  a  telegram :  Arrest,  with  all  the  means  in  your 
power,  Citiscn  Louis  Napoleon,  if  he  appears  in  your  department, 
signed  Ledru-Rollin ;  ii  year  later  the  same  prefect  received  an  iden- 
tical order  to  arrest  Lcdru-Rollin,  signed  Dufaure,  minister  of  Louis 
Napoleon." 
^  Audebrand  213-6. 

'Ledru  did  not  take  the  floor,  but  he  repeatedly  interrupted  with 
effective  remarks  the  conservative  orators. 


1  ^6   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [350 

Jules  Favre  spoke  first;  he  claimed  that  the  government 
through  its  usual  mouthpiece,  Cremieux,  had  agreed  to  the 
election  of  Prince  Louis.  When  Ledru  denied  this,  a 
violent  altercation  ensued  in  which  Favre  made  a  scathing 
attack  on  the  government,  and  particularly  on  Ledru  and 
Cremieux.  Favre  then  ridiculed  the  fear  of  this  Bonaparte 
and  ended  by  advocating  his  admission  to  the  Assembly. 
Buchez  was  against  admission.  "  It  is  not  a  mere  citizen 
who  presents  himself,  but  Prince  Louis  Napoleon,"  he  said. 
Various  orators  spoke  pro  and  con  on  the  subject.  One 
ridiculed  Lamartine's  account  of  the  previous  day,  for  the 
uprising  turned  out  to  be  a  very  small  riot.  A  letter  from 
the  absent  prince  was  read,  supposed  to  reveal  the  disinter- 
estedness of  that  individual  who  did  not  wish  to  trouble  the 
republic  by  forcing  himself  on  it  as  a  deputy. 

At  last  Ledru  obtained  the  floor.  He  spoke  in  the  name 
of  the  government  which  must  enforce  an  existing  law. 
The  very  fact  that  the  Assembly  was  discussing  its  abroga- 
tion or  suspension  proved  its  existence.  Popular  sovereignty 
was  not  in  question,  for  the  vote  of  three  departments  was 
not  the  vote  of  France.  So  had  declared  the  authors  of  the 
constitution  of  1793.  To  admit  Louis  Napoleon  was  to 
permit  a  single  department  to  elect  Henry  V  or  the  Count 
of  Paris ;  ^  this  would  be  absurd.  The  law  was  not  abro- 
gated by  the  admittance  of  other  members  of  the  Bonaparte 
family;  that  was  an  act  of  magnanimity  to  individuals  who 
were  not  conspirators.  Even  if  Louis  Napoleon  had  not 
conspired  himself,  much  had  been  done  in  his  name.  Ledru 
then  gave  various  details  as  to  Bonapartist  intrigues.  In 
the  presence  of  these  facts,  he  continued,  the  executive  com- 
mission desired  the  enforcement  of  the  law.  The  admit- 
tance of  the  pretender  would  not  cause  the  death  of  the  re- 

^  The  legitimist  and  Orleanist  pretenders. 


35i]  THE  JUNE  DAYS  197 

public,  but  it  might  lead  to  bloodshed.  The  government 
joined  in  wishing  to  abolish  the  law  against  the  Bonapartes, 
but  it  asked  that  meanwhile  it  be  maintained.  It  was 
claimed,  the  orator  said,  that  Louis  Napoleon  was  a  stranger 
to  these  intrigues;  everyone  said  so  but  he.  Let  him  de- 
clare so  plainly.  The  law  should  not  be  repealed  for  fear  of 
an  uprising.  The  agitators  should  be  fought  to  the  cry  of 
Hurrah  for  the  Republic!  ^ 

At  the  end  of  Ledru's  speech  the  session  was  suspended 
for  several  minutes  while  the  partisans  of  the  orator  gave 
vent  to  their  enthusiasm.  The  newspapers  the  next  day 
were  unanimous  in  declaring  the  speech  a  fine  one.  The 
conservative  Dehats  declared :  "  Our  readers  will  easily  un- 
derstand how  little  we  like  agreeing  with  M.  Ledru-Rollin, 
but  in  this  instance  we  cannot  do  otherwise.  M.  Ledru- 
Rollin  is  the  only  person  who  showed  true  political  sense  in 
the  discussion,  and  we  willingly  admit  that  at  times  he  even 
rose  to  true  eloquence."  "  The  speech  certainly  stands  among* 
the  best  that  Ledru  ever  delivered.  It  has  his  customary 
warmth,  but  it  possesses  in  addition  a  quality  in  which  he 
was  usually  deficient,  a  clear  well-developed  argument.  The 
speech  swept  a  hostile  audience  off  its  feet,  and  yet  it  did 

^  Discours  politiqucs,  2 :  33-9. 

*  Debats,  June  14.  The  Courier  and  the  Constitutionnel,  while  dis- 
agreeing with  Ledru's  conclusions,  call  the  speech  respectively  "the 
event  of  the  session  "  and  the  "  only  speech  worth  discussing."  Corkran 
143-9,  who  was  present  in  the  gallery,  writes:  "Notwithstanding  that  I 
was  under  a  prejudice  against  this  gentleman  ...  his  oratorical  pow^ers 
took  me  by  surprise.  .  .  .  There  could  be  no  doubt  of  the  sincerity  of 
his  love  for  the  republic.  ...  A  jovial,  restless  fellow,  full  of  animal 
spirits,  who  while  aspiring  to  lead  was  likely  to  become  an  instrument 
in  the  hands  of  astute  schemers.  .  .  .  Ledru-Rollin  desires  to  pass  for 
the  Danton  of  February,  and  he  has  so  far  succeeded  that  he  is  to 
Danton  what  1848  is  to  1793.  ...  He  wants  the  lion-like  roar  of  his 
awful  prototype,  and  affecting  it  .  .  .  obtains  the  croaking  of  a  gigantic 
frog.  .  .  .  Not  being  a  moderate  rcijublican  and  not  being  a  socialist^ 
he  is  nothing." 


1^8   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [352 

not  convince,  for  after  a  few  more  speeches  and  the  read- 
ing of  a  letter  in  which  Louis  Napoleon  declared  his  loyalty 
to  the  republic,  the  Assembly  voted  in  favor  of  the  admittance 
of  the  Bonapartist  pretender  to  his  seat.  The  majority  was 
composed  of  various  elements.  Many  wished  to  show  their 
hostility  to  the  executive  commission.  Some  were  in- 
fluenced by  Louis  Napoleon's  letters.  A  few  members  of 
the  extreme  left,  such  as  Louis  Blanc,  were  opposed  to  all 
laws  of  banishment.  Thus  the  future  emperor  obtained  his 
entry  into  the  Assembly,  but  three  days  later  that  wily  poli- 
tician sent  in  his  resignation.  Ledru-Rollin  and  Napoleon 
had  come  into  conflict  for  the  first  time  on  June  13,  1848. 
Exactly  one  year  later  to  the  day  they  came  into  conflict 
again,  and  that  was  practically  the  end  of  Ledru-Rollin' s 
legislative  career. 

After  the  vote  adverse  to  the  executive  commission  was 
announced,  the  rumor  spread  that  Ledru,  even  that  the 
whole  government  had  resigned/  For  once  rumor  had  a 
certain  foundation.  At  the  evening  meeting  of  the  execu- 
tive commission  on  June  13  Ledru  and  Lamartine  expressed 
their  desire  to  resign.  x\rago  and  Marie  were  willing  to 
do  the  same,  but  Garnier-Pages  opposed  a  withdrawal  in  a 
time  of  danger.  Ledru  explained  that  his  resignation  would 
not  be  the  abandonment  of  the  republic,  but  on  the  contrary, 
a  most  efficacious  way  of  devoting  himself  to  it;  in  opposi- 
tion he  could  join  his  friends  of  the  Mountain  in  a  war  on 
all  reactionaries  and  pretenders." 

On  June  14  the  executive  commission  held  a  meeting  with 
the  ministers  and  other  prominent  officials  like  Mayor 
Marrast.  A  deputation  appeared  from  the  Palais  National, 
the   headquarters   of   the   club   of   the   moderates.     Glais- 

^  Constitutionnel,    Patric,    Penple    Constitiiant,    June    14;    Lampion, 
June  15. 
*  Garnier-Pages  10 :  294-5. 


353]  ^^^  JU^'^  D^ys  199 

Bizoin,  its  spokesman,  contended  that  the  vote  of  the  pre- 
vious day  was  not  a  vote  of  lack  of  confidence,  that  he  and 
his  friends  feared  that  it  might  cause  the  resignation  of 
the  government,  and  that  they  had  come  to  prevent  that. 
After  a  general  discussion  in  which  Cavaignac,  minister  of 
w^ar,  showed  himself  the  most  opposed  to  the  idea  of  resign- 
ing, the  government  and  its  ministers  decided  by  a  vote  of 
thirteen  to  five  to  remain/ 

Beside  the  extreme  revolutionists  and  the  conservatives, 
many  moderates  were  dissatisfied  with  the  executive  com- 
mission, and  there  were  many  rumors  of  plans  to  overthrow 
it.-  One  real  attempt  to  divide  the  government  there  was. 
On  the  morning  of  June  20  before  the  arrival  of  their  two 
colleagues,  Garnier-Pages,  Marie,  and  Arago  discussed  a 
proposal  made  to  the  latter  by  some  deputies.  They  were 
to  form  a  more  homogeneous  government  by  separating  from 
themselves  their  two  absent  associates.  The  three  members 
of  the  government  were  in  perfect  accord  as  to  giving  an 
absolute  refusal.  Lamartine,  they  knew,  desired  to  resign, 
and  Ledru-Rollin  would  be  delighted  to  become  once  more 
the  leader  of  the  extreme  left;  but  they  felt  that  it  would 
rather  weaken  than  strengthen  the  prestige  of  the  govern- 
ment if  they  agreed.  They  did  not  mention  the  incident 
to  Lamartine  and  Ledru  in  order  not  to  cause  them  useless 
vexation  and  just  indignation.^ 

'  Garnicr-Pages  10:295-301;  Barthelemy-St.  Hilaire  on  November  2^, 
1848,  in  Monitcur  for  1848,  p.  3351.  The  five  in  favor  of  resigning  were 
Lamartine,  Ledru,  Jean  Reynaud,  and  probably  Flocon  and  Bastide. 

'  The  Landrin-Portalis  attempt  to  institute  proceedings  against  Louis 
Blanc  and  Caussidiere  was  supposed  to  be  an  attempt  by  Marrast  to 
reach  Ledru  through  Blanc.  —  Stern  3:70;  Organisation  dti  Travail, 
June  12.  It  is  also  claimed  that  Marrast  tried  to  make  Arago  dictator. — 
Stern  3 :  69.  Ledru  believed  in  1850  that  Marrast  and  Cavaignac  had 
tried  to  form  a  triumvirate  with  Scnard  or  Bergcr  to  replace  the  execu- 
tive commission. — Voix  du  Proscrit  2 :  45-6. 

'Garnier-Pages  11:54-6. 


200   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [354 

Meanwhile  an  insurrection  was  threatened  and  the  execu- 
tive commission  was  aware  of  this.  The  poHce  brought  in 
continual  reports  of  the  probability  of  an  uprising.  The 
five  chiefs  of  the  government  had  done  their  utmost  to 
collect  sufiicient  troops  at  Paris,  It  is  difficult  to  ascertain 
the  size  of  the  army  in  and  about  Paris  or  to  determine 
whether  more  troops  could  have  been  stationed  there  with- 
out too  much  weakening  the  frontier.  But  one  fact  stands 
out  clearly.  Whereas  Cavaignac,  minister  of  war,  may  have 
done  the  best  he  could  or  may  have  shown  incapacity,  no 
blame  can  fall  on  the  members  of  the  executive  commission. 
They  were  constantly  urging  that  more  troops  be  brought 
to  Paris.  If  this  was  not  done,  it  was  due  either  to  the 
necessity  of  maintaining  the  forces  elsewhere  or  to  the 
incapacity  of  the  minister  of  war,  the  agent  of  the  govern- 
ment in  such  matters. 

When  he  discussed  this  matter  later,  Ledru-Rollin  went 
too  far  in  his  accusations.  He  placed  the  "  insatiable  ambi- 
tion of  General  Cavaignac "  beside  the  intrigues  of  the 
monarchists  and  the  sufferings  of  the  proletariat  as  one  of 
the  chief  causes  of  the  insurrection  of  June.  On  this  charge 
Ledru  is  unconvincing.  The  only  evidence  that  he  gave  was 
certain  doubtful  plots  to  overthrow  the  executive  commis- 
sion in  favor  of  the  general  and  the  small  number  of  troops 
in  Paris.  As  to  the  intrigues  of  the  monarchists,  Ledru 
proved  that  partisans  of  the  three  pretenders  took  part  in 
the  uprising.  But  he  exaggerates  the  part  of  these  con- 
servatives and  understimates  the  share  of  the  ultra-revolu- 
tionaries. "  The  unfortunate  people,"  he  claims,  "  were 
unconsciously  the  puppet  of  the  old  parties  and  the  insane 
ambition  of  a  soldier."  ^ 

^  Voix  du  Proscrit  2 :  43-8.  See  also  ibid.,  i :  191-2 ;  speeches  on 
August  3,  1848  and  on  June  3,  1874,  Discours  poUtiqucs  2:47-8,  481-2; 
and  at  the  Delescluze  trial,  Revolution  deinocratique  et  sociale,  March 


255]  THE  JUNE  DAYS  201 

The  terrible  June  Days  were  rightly  called  the  insurrec- 
tion of  hunger.  The  ultra-revolutionary  leaders  had  been 
involved  in  the  uprising  of  May  15  and  were  in  prison  or 
in  hiding.  Men  like  Louis  Blanc  and  Caussidiere  deplored 
the  insurrection.  Ledru-Rollin  and  Flocon  cooperated 
actively  in  suppressing  it;  they  favored  Trelat's  plans  for 
closing  the  Workshops.  It  was  a  spontaneous  movement 
caused  by  the  utter  despair  of  the  working  classes  and  oc- 
casioned by  the  rumors  of  the  closing  of  the  National  Work- 
shops. The  proletariat  saw  no  chance  of  getting  money  by 
work  and  in  its  desperation  turned  to  the  barricades  as  the 
only  hope.  Bonapartist,  legitimist,  and  Orleanist  agitators 
undoubtedly  egged  on  the  people ;  they  may  have  encouraged 
the  movement,  but  they  did  not  cause  it.  The  uprising  was 
without  leaders,  without  cohesion,  without  definite  object. 
It  was  an  insurrection  of  hunger. 

The  dissolution  of  the  National  Workshops  was  begun 
by  the  government  on  June  21  when  some  of  the  laborers 
were  ordered  to  the  provinces  where  work  would  be  given 
them.  A  committee  headed  by  Pujol,  a  Bonapartist,  came 
to  the  executive  commission  to  protest  against  this  action.  It 
was  received  by  Marie  who  showed  great  firmness  and  re- 
fused to  yield  to  the  insolent  demands  of  Pujol.  The  com- 
mittee left,  breathing  vengeance  and  threatening  a  revolt. 
Marie  ordered  the  arrest  of  the  delegates,  but  the  order  was 
not  carried  out. 

On  June  22  the  executive  commission  met  at  eight  o'clock 
in  the  morning.  Orders  had  already  been  given  to  guard 
the  capital,  but  due  to  the  fault  either  of  General  Cavaignac 
or  of  one  of  his  aides  they  were  not  carried  out.  Rccurt, 
minister  of  the  interior,  desired  to  stop  the  insurrection  im- 

12,  1849.  Gamier- Pages,  in  a  pamphlet  of  February  23,  1874,  also  gives 
details  that  the  June  days  were  a  Bonapartist  conspiracy.  —  LR  Papers 
3 :  264. 


202   LEDRU-ROLLIK  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [356 

mediately,  but  the  two  military  men  present,  Cavaignac,  the 
minister  of  war,  and  Clement  Thomas  the  commander  of 
the  National  Guard,  opposed  this  measure.  The  executive 
commission  itself  was  unanimous  in  desiring  to  occupy  the 
streets  to  prevent  bloodshed.  Ledru  remarked  that  bar- 
ricades were  contagious  and  that  the  first  had  to  be  pre- 
vented if  the}^  were  not  to  be  multiplied  indefinitely.  General 
Cavaignac,  on  the  other  hand,  asserted  that  it  was  a  great 
military  mistake  to  divide  the  forces.  "  Let  the  barricades 
be  built  and  then  retake  them  with  superior  forces,"  he  said. 
Vainly  the  five  chief  executives  evoked  the  experience  of  the 
past.  The  council  separated  w^ithout  coming  to  a  decision. 
The  two  rival  methods,  that  of  prevention  and  that  of  con- 
centration had  clashed  for  the  first  time.^ 

During  the  morning  the  left  and  the  extreme  left  of  the 
Assembly  met  together.  It  was  decided  that  they  could  not 
eliminate  one  or  two  of  the  members  of  the  executive  com- 
mission for  all  were  selected  from  the  left ;  they  must  either 
maintain  the  commission  intact  or  replace  it  by  an  entirely 
new  government,  for  to  eliminate  any  member  would  be  to 
blame  him  and  thereby  weaken  the  left.  The  general  feel- 
ing at  the  meeting  was  that  the  situation  demanded  a  dic- 
tatorship. The  names  of  Dupont  de  I'Eure,  Arago,  Lam- 
artine  and  even  Ledru-Rollin  were  successively  proposed 
as  dictator  and  rejected.  Finally  the  name  of  Cavaignac 
was  accepted.'  A  committee  was  appointed  composed  of 
Ducoux,  Landrin,  and  Latrade;  the  two  latter  were  friends 
of  Ledru-Rollin  but  had  broken  with  the  government  over 

1  Barthelemy-St.  Hilaire  in  speech  of  November  25,  1848  (quoted  as 
B.-St.  H.),  Moniteur  3352.  For  rival  statements  as  to  troops,  see  Quen- 
tin-Bauchart  Report  i :  312  for  Ledru ;  speech  of  November  25.  1848, 
Moniteur  3355,  for  Cavaignac.  Later  in  the  morning  Lamartine  and 
Ledru  wandered  through  Paris  to  judge  for  themselves  the  true  char- 
acter of  the  public  meetings. — Garnier-Pages  1 1 :  109. 

*  Stern  2  :  201-2. 


227]  THE  JUNE  DAYS  20$ 

the  prosecution  of  Louis  Blanc  and  Caussidiere.  The  three 
delegates  went  to  see  General  Cavaignac,  but  the  General 
refused  to  discuss  a  dictatorship  officially  until  the  executive 
commission  had  been  informed.  During  an  ensuing  in- 
formal conversation  the  General  declared  that  he  would 
accept  power  if  given  the  authority  to  appoint  his  own 
ministers.  The  committee  then  went  to  see  the  executive 
commission,  but  when  they  reached  the  Luxembourg  about 
eleven  o'clock  only  Marie  and  Arago  were  present.  On 
hearing  their  proposition  the  testy  Arago  flared  into  a  pas- 
sion, declaring  that  the  resignation  of  Ledru  would  cause 
trouble  among  the  working  people.  Marie,  who  had  kept 
his  temper  under  control,  put  off  the  delegates  till  the  next 
day.  About  this  time  the  conservatives  in  the  Rue  de 
Poitiers  had  also  come  to  the  decision  to  work  for  the 
dictatorship  of  Cavaignac.^ 

E^rly  on  the  morning  of  June  23  the  executive  commis- 
sion met.  They  ordered  that  the  rap  pel  be  sounded  in 
three  arrondissements  and  also  ordered  various  arrests. 
Cavaignac  now  entered  and  after  a  heated  explanation  as 
to  why  he  had  not  carried  out  orders  by  sending  troops  to 
the  Pantheon,  the  two  rival  plans  were  again  debated.  The 
General  advocated  that  the  army  be  placed  under  his  control, 
massed,  then  launched  at  the  centres  of  revolt.  The  com- 
mission thought  it  best  to  attack  each  barricade  as  soon  as 
it  was  built  or  even  commenced.  For  a  long  time  the  com- 
mission maintained  its  opinion  and  only  yielded  with  re- 
gret, leaving  to  General  Cavaignac  the  determination  and 
execution  of  military  operations."     The  executive  commis- 

*  Garnier-Pages  11  :  107-117. 

2  Lcdru  in  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  i :  312.  In  the  Voix  du  Proscrit 
2 :  47  Ledru  says :  "  It  was  urgent  to  subdue  the  insurrection,  in  which 
as  yet  could  be  found  only  counter-revolutionary  and  provocative  ele- 
ments, in  order  to  prevent  the  true  workingincn  from  being  deceived  as 
to  the  banner  and  joining  the  revolt." 


204   LEDRU-ROLLIX  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [338 

sion  had  seen  on  May  15  the  need  for  unity  of  command 
and  therefore  gave  Cavaignac  complete  control.  Although 
disagreeing  with  him  as  to  tactics,  its  members  felt  that  the 
military  commander  must  be  allowed  his  own  plan  of  cam- 
paign. They  were  neither  soldiers  nor  military  experts  and 
so  they  yielded  to  the  minister  of  war.  They  thought  wisely 
as  statesmen  who  took  into  consideration  mob  psychology 
while  Cavaignac  acted  as  a  general  who  saw  only  an  armed 
force  to  be  defeated.'' 

After  the  early  meeting  Cavaignac,  Lamartine,  Ledru,  and 
Marie  set  out  for  the  Assembly.  Arago  went  to  the  twelfth 
arrondissement  where  with  the  help  of  the  National  Guard 
he  prevented  any  insurrection.  Ledru  claims  that  he  had 
distributed  food  in  this  section,  thus  "  contenting  the  arti- 
sans of  the  twelfth  arrondissement  who  had  come  to  me 
under  the  leadership  of  their  mayor  and  had  declared  that 
they  did  not  wish  to  take  part  in  the  revolt  but  that  they 
were  hungry."  ^  Garni er- Pages,  left  alone  at  the  Luxem- 
bourg, thought  that  insufficient  troops  had  been  sent  to 
protect  the  city  hall,  the  Palais  Bourbon,  and  the  Luxem- 
bourg; he  therefore  gave  orders  that  fresh  regiments  be 
sent  to  these  places,  but  Cavaignac  on  his  return  counter- 
manded these  orders. 

Later  in  the  morning  the  executive  commission  held 
another  meeting.  Numerous  demands  for  troops  had  ar- 
rived, for  serious  fighting  had  begun  at  ten  o'clock.  Cav- 
aignac adhered  strictly  to  his  plan  and  rejected  all  such  re- 
quests. Ledru-Rollin  insisted  Avarmly  on  furnishing  the 
troops  demanded  by  the  commandant  at  the  Porte  St.  Denis. 
The  general  was  immovable  in  his  decision;  in  an  irritated 

'  For  discussion  of  this  meeting,  see  minutes  of  the  executive  commis- 
sion in  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  3:247;  B.-St.  H.,  Moniteur  3353;  Gar- 
nier- Pages  11 :  125-134. 

*  Voix  du  Proscrii  2 :  47. 


0^9]  THE  JUNE  DAYS  205 

manner  he  declared  that  he  did  not  care  to  expose  the  reg- 
ular army,  that  it  was  for  the  National  Guard  to  prevent 
the  erection  of  barricades/ 

About  three  in  the  afternoon  Latrade,  one  of  the  delegates 
appointed  by  the  lefts  on  June  22,  visited  the  executive 
commission  to  suggest  its  resignation.  Lamartine  showed 
irritation  but  Ledru-Rollin  was  most  affable.  "  My  friend," 
he  said,  "  You  come  in  the  name  of  mutual  friends.  It  is 
in  their  name  that  you  advised  me  to  accept  membership  in 
the  executive  commission,  and  I  then  told  you  that  you 
were  making  a  mistake.  It  is  in  their  name  today  that  you 
ask  my  resignation.  I  wish  to  be  with  my  friends  even 
when  they  are  wrong.  There  is  my  resignation,  but  my 
opinion  is  that  if  my  friends  made  a  mistake  in  making  me 
enter  the  executive  commission,  they  commit  another  in 
destroying  that  commission."  Latrade  refused  the  signed 
resignation,  replying  that  if  a  collective  resignation  was  a 
mistake,  an  isolated  withdrawal  would  be  an  even  greater 
one,  and  that  it  was  best  to  wait  and  see  what  was  decided. 
The  conversation  became  general  and  only  stopped  when 
Garnier-Pages  cried:  "  We  discuss^the  form  of  government 
when  we  should  be  acting  against  the  insurrection  that 
menaces  us;  our  place  is  facing  the  uprising."  Latrade 
was  obliged  to  leave  without  having  achieved  his  object." 

The  commission  now  divided  its  work  among  the  various 
members.  Garnier-Pages  went  to  the  Assembly  and  then 
visited  the  various  mayoralties.  Lamartine  went  to  the  bar- 
ricades. Arago  remained  at  the  Luxembourg  and  kept  an 
eye  on  the  left  bank.  Only  Ledru  and  Marie  stayed  at 
the  combined  military  and  civil  headquarters,  now  situated 
in  the  Palais  Bourbon.  Ledru  later  told  the  story  of  the 
next  few  hours: 

'  B.-St.  H.,  Monitcur  3353;  Garnier-Pages  11:134-152. 
'  Garnier-Pages  11 :  19G. 


2o6   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [360 

About  three-thirty  General  Cavaignac  left  headquarters  to 
see  how  affairs  were  proceeding;  he  said  that  he  would  be 
absent  not  more  than  an  hour.  He  did  not  return  till  nine  in 
the  evening,  and  I  can  never  describe  the  tortures  I  underwent 
during  his  absence.  All  the  mayors  of  Paris  sent  to  me  for 
reinforcements,  all  complained  of  not  having  troops,  the 
National  Guard  cried  treason,  and  there  was  I  alone  at  head- 
quarters in  a  mortal  anxiety  beyond  description.  In  the 
absence  of  my  colleagues  I  took  it  on  myself  to  write  to  the 
prefects  and  to  demand  all  their  forces  that  were  near  Paris. 
I  hastened  to  send  the  order  to  Admiral  Casy  that  he  should 
immediately  send  troops  from  Brest  and  Cherbourg.  On  the 
return  of  General  Cavaignac  I  admit  that  I  showed  great 
wrath.^ 

Again  on  November  25,  1848  Ledru  told  the  Assembly : 

At  half  past  three  the  general  departed  and  went  to  the 
barricades ;  he  declared  that  he  would  return  in  half  an  hour. 
I  know  how  his  time  was  employed,  but  I  shall  not  discuss  that 
as  that  is  not  the  question.  Note  carefully  what  passed.  The 
executive  commission  was  meeting  in  a  room  of  the  Palais 
Bourbon,  All  Paris,  all  the  faubourgs  without  exception,  came 
to  the  two  members  present,  M.  ]\Iarie  and  me,  came  to  us 
for  orders.  For  hours,  from  three-thirty  to  nine  o'clock,  the 
general,  then  fighting  at  the  barricades  ....  was  supreme 
commander,  and  it  was  his  duty  to  be  at  the  seat  of  authority, 
for  the  barricades  could  be  bravely  defended  by  others,  and 
there  were  sufficient  brave  and  illustrious  generals,  but  the 

^  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  1:312;  cf.  B.-St.  H.,  Monitcur  3353.  It 
was  at  five  o'clock  that  Ledru  and  iVIarie  sent  the  following  order  to 
the  prefect  of  the  Lower  Seine  (Rouen)  :  "  Citizen  prefect.  The  fac- 
tions have  thrown  Paris  into  an  extreme  agitation.  The  aid  of  the 
National  Guard  of  your  department  would  be  useful.  Send  it  imme- 
diately to  Paris  as  well  as  whatever  battalions  of  the  army  are  at  your 
disposal.  The  minister  of  war  should  give  the  necessary  orders  to- 
night. If  by  chance  they  do  not  arrive,  let  these  take  their  place." — 
Lille  Library,  No.  985,  p.  683.     See  appendix. 


361]  THE  JUNE  DAYS  20/ 

seat  of  authority  could  not  be  filled  by  another.  Now  as  the 
demands  for  troops  came  in,  what  could  we  reply?  We  were 
obliged  to  answer :  The  General  is  absent.  To  this  the  answer 
came:  You  are  betraying  us!  The  National  Guard  shouted: 
Treason;  down  with  the  Executive  Commission! 

Then  turning  toward  Cavaignac  Ledru  continued : 

You  arrived  at  half  past  eight  and  you  left  again  at  nine. 
Here  is,  I  said  to  you,  a  long  list  of  demands.  I  have  not 
been  able  to  reply  to  them.  I  do  not  know  where  a  single  one 
of  your  battalions  is.  I  cannot  conflict  with  your  orders. 
You  left  at  nine  o'clock,  and  you  returned  at  two  in  the  morn- 
ing. From  nine  to  two  I  was  again  in  the  same  situation.  I 
make  no  accusations,  but  I  say  this :  You  acted  in  such  a  way 
that  the  National  Guard  could  accuse  me,  for  as  people  came 
in  and  could  not  find  you,  I  could  not  answer.  It  was  said : 
Ledru-Rollin  is  conspiring;  Ledru-Rollin  is  betraying  us!  ^ 

About  two  in  the  morning  of  June  23-24  Cavaignac  re- 
turned for  the  second  time  to  headquarters.  Ledru  later 
said: 

Having  asked  General  Cavaignac  how  many  troops  there 
were  in  Paris,  I  was  told  in  reply  that  he  did  not  know.  I 
believed  in  beginning  the  attack  again  at  the  break  of  day 
and  in  sending  two  batallions  to  General  Damesne.  This  was 
not  the  opinion  of  the  general  ....  Cavaignac  said:  The 
honor  of  the  army  demands  that  I  persist  in  my  system.  If 
even  one  of  my  companions  were  disarmed,  I  should  cut  my 
throat;  let  the  National  Guard  attack  the  barricades.     If  it 

'  Discours  politiques  2 :  135-6.  Cf.  at  Delescluze  trial,  Revolution  demo- 
cratique  et  socialc,  March  13,  1849.  At  ten  P.  M.  Ledru  and  his  col- 
leagues sent  off  a  second  order  to  Rouen :  "  The  commission  of  the  ex- 
ecutive power  asks  the  prefect  of  the  Lower  Seine  to  send  to  Paris 
immediately  all  the  troops  of  the  National  Guard  and  of  the  line  at  his 
disposal.  .  .  .  Requisition  the  railroads  to  transport  the  troops." — Lille 
Library,  No.  985,  p.  d&Z-    Sec  appendix. 


2o8   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [362 

is  defeated,  I  zvould  rather  retire  to  the  plain  of  St.  Denis  and 
there  offer  battle  to  the  uprising.^ 

Cavaignac  wished  to  leave  again  and  go  to  bed  at  the 
ministry  of  war.  Ledru-Rollin  opposed  this;  he  declared 
that  the  members  of  the  executive  commission  were  worn 
out  and  yet  remained  at  their  post,  that  a  moment  of  negli- 
gence might  mean  a  calamity,  and  that  the  General  ought 
not  to  leave.  Cavaignac  deigned  no  reply,  but  instead  of 
leaving  he  went  into  an  adjoining  room  and  threw  himself- 
upon  a  couch.  The  soldier  slept  while  the  civilian,  Ledru- 
Rollin,  kept  watch.  About  three  o'clock  firing  began  again, 
and  at  half -past  four  headquarters  were  aroused  by  a  staff 
officer.  The  officer  was  told  that  Cavaignac  was  sleeping 
but  he  insisted  on  seeing  him.  The  officer  with  difficulty  was 
induced  to  let  Ledru-Rollin  take  his  place  in  awakening  the 
commander-in-chief.  Cavaignac  merely  repeated  his  orders 
to  keep  the  regulars  massed  and  inactive.  Thus  the  night 
wore  slowly  on.  At  seven  o'clock  the  executive  commission 
held  a  short  meeting  and  then  Garnier-Pages  started  for 
another  tour  of  the  mayoralties.' 

The  Assembly  had  passed  an  exciting  day  on  the  twenty- 
third.  A  permanent  session  had  been  decreed  early  in  the 
sitting.  The  Assembly  disregarded  the  suggestion  of  issuing 
a  circular  to  appease  those  insurgents  who  were  sincere 
and  had  no  ulterior  motives.  It  listened  to  reports  as  to 
the  progress  of  the  insurrection  and  the  measures  of  the 
government ;  it  heard  the  accounts  of  Lamartine,  Cavaignac, 
and  Garnier-Pages.  The  session  was  suspended  at  mid- 
night. 

^  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  1:312-3.  Cf.  B.-St.  H.,  Moniteur  3354; 
Etex  247-8.  Ledru  also  accused  Cavaignac  of  causing  a  delay  in  the 
arrival  of  cannon  which  he,  Ledru,  had  ordered  up  from  Vincennes. — 
See  Ledru  in  Quentin-Bauchart  Report  i :  312-3  and  Cavaignac  on  No- 
vember 25,  1848,  Moniteur  3356-3360,  3364. 

'  B.-St.  H.,  Moniteur  3354-5. 


363]  THE  JUXE  DAYS  209 

By  the  morning  of  June  24,  as  the  insurrection  spread  and 
no  measures  were  taken  to  prevent  the  building  of  barri- 
cades, the  majority  of  the  Assembly  began  openly  to  ex- 
press its  desire  for  a  concentration  of  power.  Latrade  and 
his  colleagues  had  already  tried  unsuccessfully  to  induce 
Cavaignac  to  accept  the  dictatorship.  The  conservatives  of 
the  Rue  de  Poitiers  had  expressed  the  same  desire.  In  this 
we  can  now  see  one  of  the  ironies  of  history,  although  it 
did  not  become  known  until  November.  The  executive  com- 
mission which  had  desired  to  stop  the  building  of  the  bar- 
ricades and  to  attack  the  insurgents,  was  to  be  removed  be- 
cause its  advice  had  not  been  accepted,  and  it  was  to  be  re- 
placed by  the  minister  of  war,  the  very  man  on  whose  in- 
sistence the  plan  of  prevention  had  been  abandoned.  Thus 
the  Assembly  entirely  approving  the  policy  of  the  executive 
commission,  wished  to  overthrow  the  commission  and  put 
the  dictatorship  in  the  hands  of  that  member  of  the  cabinet 
whose  policy  is  distrusted.  It  certainly  was  the  height  of 
irony  to  entrust  the  sole  power  to  the  chief  advocate  of  the 
system  of  concentration. 

Senard,  who  had  succeeded  Buchez  as  president  of  the 
Assembly,  came  to  discuss  with  Cavaignac  a  new  executive. 
The  general  declared  that  he  would  make  no  efforts  to  be- 
come dictator,  but  if  it  were  the  wish  of  the  Assembly,  he 
would  accept  the  responsibility  of  government;  he  left  the 
matter  entirely  to  the  Assembly.  Senard  saw  also  the  ex- 
ecutive commission.  Garnier-Pagcs  declared  that  the  good 
of  the  country  was  his  first  thought  and  that  the  government 
could  not  resign  in  a  time  of  danger.  His  colleagues  agreed 
with  him  and  refused  to  abdicate.  Senard  left,  determined 
to  do  his  best  to  overthrow  the  executive  commission  in 
spite  of  its  opposition.* 

i  1  B.-St.  H.,  Moniicur  3355. 


2IO   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [364 

The  meeting  of  the  Assembly  on  June  24  opened  at  eight 
o'clock  in  the  morning.  After  President  Senard  had  re- 
ported on  the  progress  of  the  uprising  and  after  a  motion 
for  a  secret  session  had  been  rejected,  the  Assembly  passed 
three  motions.  A  permanent  session  was  decreed  by  un- 
animous vote;  a  state  of  siege,  by  a  decided  majority;  and 
by  a  small  majority  "  all  power  is  entrusted  to  General 
Cavaignac."  Three  members  of  the  extreme  left  protested 
against  the  state  of  siege.  Quentin-Bauchart  and  Jules 
Favre  desired  to  remove  the  executive  commission  by  a 
specific  decree,  but  the  Chamber  wished  to  spare  the  five 
members  this  humiliation  and  merely  implied  their  removal 
by  appointing  Cavaignac  over  their  heads. 

In  the  meantime  a  new  discussion  had  opened  at  head- 
quarters in  the  Palais  Bourbon.  It  was  too  late  to  pre- 
vent the  building  of  barricades,  but  they  might  be  attacked 
immediately.  This  was  the  advice  of  Ledru  and  his  col- 
leagues. But  the  General  was  inflexible  and  the  insistence 
irritated  him.  He  refused.^  Finally  the  news  of  the  ap- 
pointment of  Cavaignac  as  dictator  arrived.  According  to 
Garni er- Pages,  he  and  Lamartine  were  glad  of  the  deliver- 
ance. IMarie  felt  the  injustice  of  their  removal.  Arago 
smiled.  "  AI.  Ledru-Rollin  found  it  bizarre  to  be  thus  re- 
jected by  the  national  representatives  whom  he  had  defended 
so  energetically  against  a  Bonapartist  insurrection  which  he 
could  have  transformed  into  an  ultra-democratic  revolu- 
tion by  taking  its  leadership  and  accepting  the  dictatorship."  ^ 

1  Ibid.,  3355.  Barthelenij^-St.  Hilaire  places  at  this  point  the  remark 
of  Cavaignac  about  cutting  his  throat  if  one  of  his  companies  were  dis- 
armed and  preferring  to  fight  on  the  plains  of  St.  Denis. 

'  Gamier- Pages  11:276.  Cf.  Hugo  1:356-9,  who  says:  "  M.  Ledru- 
Rollin,  very  rei\,  was  sitting  on  the  edge  of  the  table.  M.  Garnier-Pages, 
very  pale  and  lying  in  an  armchair,  made  a  great  contrast  to  him.  The 
antithesis  was  complete.  Gamier- Pages,  spare  and  long-haired;  Ledru- 
Rollin,  stout  and  bald." 


365]  THE  JUNE  DAYS  211 

The  commission,  considering  a  formal  resignation 
necessary,  signed  the  following  declaration :  "  The  com- 
mission of  the  executive  power  would  fail  in  duty  and  hon- 
our by  retiring  before  a  public  peril ;  it  retires  only  because 
of  a  vote  of  the  Assembly.  In  returning  the  powers  with 
which  you  invested  it,  it  rejoins  the  ranks  of  the  Assembly 
to  devote  itself  with  you  to  the  common  dangers  and  to  the 
safety  of  the  republic."  ^ 

Lamartine  remarked  to  Victor  Hugo  on  this  same  day  of 
June  24:  "Do  not  judge  me  too  quickly;  I  was  not 
minister  of  war."  -  This  remark  sums  up  the  situation.  If 
the  government  is  to  be  blamed  for  its  actions  during  the 
June  Days,  it  is  the  minister  of  war  who  was  responsible. 
If  there  were  insufficient  troops,  it  was  due  to  Cavaignac;  as 
to  the  reinforcements  they  were  all  ordered  up,  not  by  the 
commander-in-chief,  but  by  Ledru-Rollin  and  Marie.  If 
the  barricades  were  not  attacked  in  time,  it  was  owing  to- 
the  opposition  of  Cavaignac;  it  was  his  policy  of  concentra- 
tion that  allowed  the  insurrection  to  spread.  If  there  was 
not  unity  of  command,  again  on  the  General  falls  the  whole 
onus;  the  executive  commission  did  all  that  it  could;  it  gave 
him  sole  command;  it  was  his  absence  from  the  head- 
quarters that  caused  the  lack  of  coordination.  If  devotion 
to  duty  is  considered,  recall  the  picture  of  Ledru-Rollin 
on  duty  while  Cavaignac  slept. 

Cavaignac  may  be  charged  with  incapacity.  He  showed 
no  ability  in  quelling  the  revolt.  His  plan  of  concentra- 
tion has  generally  been  blamed.  He  seems  to  have  lost  his 
head  and  his  temper  repeatedly  during  the  first  day.  He 
spared  the  army  at  the  expense  of  the  National  Guard.  On 
the  other  band,  of  treachery  to  the  government,  the  minister 
of  war  should  be  acquitted.     He  showed  his  loyalty  to  it 

'  Monitcur  1490. 
"  Hugo  1 :  359. 


o  12   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [366 

by  rejecting  the  first  offers  of  a  dictatorship,  and  on  the 
twenty-fourth  he  openly  avowed  his  position  before  the  com- 
mission. However,  he  never  admitted  until  the  following 
November  that  he  was  responsible  for  the  failure  to  attack 
the  barricades;  it  is  quite  possible  that,  if  he  had  made  a 
declaration  to  that  effect  to  Senard,  he  would  never  have 
received  the  dictatorship. 

To  sum  up,  the  executive  commission  showed  energ}^  and 
ability  in  facing  the  insurrection  and  there  was  no  good 
reason  for  removing  it  at  that  time.  Cavaignac  had  few 
qualifications  for  the  position  thrust  upon  him;  he  was  a 
competent  soldier,  an  honest  man,  and  the  brother  of  a  great 
republican,  Godefroy  Cavaignac. 

For  several  days  the  legislature  met,  merely  to  listen  to 
reports  of  the  progress  of  the  insurrection.  Cavaignac  had 
at  last  concentrated  his  troops,  and  after  frightful  carnage 
the  uprising  was  finally  suppressed.  On  June  26  the  As- 
sembly voted  a  commission  of  inquiry  into  the  affairs  of 
May  15  and  June  23;  the  next  day  it  decreed  the  deporta- 
tion of  the  rebels;  on  the  twenty-eighth  it  voted  that  Cav- 
aignac, Senard,  and  Mgr.  Affre,  Archbishop  of  Paris,  who 
had  been  killed  during  the  revolt,  had  deserved  well  of 
France.  The  old  ministry  of  course  fell  with  the  executive 
commission  and  on  June  18  the  new  ministry  was  announced. 
Senard  was  minister  of  the  interior  and  the  other  members 
of  the  cabinet  were  all  moderates,  chiefly  men  connected 
with  the  National.  The  assembly  showed  that  it  did  not 
withdraw  its  favor  from  all  the  members  of  the  fallen  gov- 
ernment, for  it  elected  Marie  as  its  president,  and  Arago 
became  chairman  of  the  seventh  bureau.  But  is  viewed 
with  disfavour  Ledru-Rollin,  Lamartine,  even  Garnier- 
Pages.  Rumors  were  even  current  that  the  two  former 
would  be  arrested.^ 

'  Times,  June  29;  Normanby  2:80-1;  Bondc  212. 


CHAPTER  XV 

The  Committee  of  Investigation 

Ledru-Rollin  was  now  able  to  assume  the  position  of 
leader  of  the  Mountain  or  the  extreme  left  of  the  Assembly. 
During  the  month  after  his  fall  he  spent  little  time  in  Paris 
but  remained  mostly  at  his  home  in  the  country  at  Fon- 
tenay-aux-Roses.  On  July  i  Ledru  and  Lamartine  defi- 
nitely severed  their  connection.  Dargaud,  the  alter  ego  of 
the  poet,  relates : 

On  July  I  I  arrived  at  Lamartine's  house  in  time  to  learn 
of  his  breals:  with  Ledru-Rollin.  It  was  noon.  .  .  .  On  the 
stairway  I  met  M.  Ledru-Rollin,  who  was  leaving  as  I  entered. 
He  had  the  proud  air  of  a  bully.  Curious,  I  entered  the 
office  of  M.  de  Lamartine,  who  hastened  to  tell  me  the  con- 
versation with  the  former  minister  of  the  interior.  The  con- 
versation was  summed  up  in  the  phrase  of  Lamartine :  JVe  are 
not  separating,  for  if  zve  agreed  on  politics,  our  natures  never 
agreed.^ 

Lamartine's  last  phrase  explains  the  break.  He  and  Ledru 
might  temporarily  work  together,  but  the  moderate  and 
idealist,  Lamartine,  could  not  remain  long  in  harness  with 
the  practical  radical,  Ledru,  who  would  advocate  extreme 
measures  in  intemperate  language  when  no  longer  restrained 
by  a  ministerial  position. 

On  June  26,  as  already  stated,  the  Assembly  had  appointed 
a  committee  to  investigate  the  events  of  May  15  and  the 

1  Cognets  :  Lamartine  422-3. 
Z67]  213 


214   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [368 

June  Days.  This  committee  was  composed  almost  solely 
of  conservatives.  It  chose  as  its  president  the  veteran 
Odilon  Barrot,  as  reporter  the  young  but  equally  unfair 
Ouentin-Bauchart.  The  committee  summoned  a  large 
number  of  witnesses.  Ledru,  for  instance,  was  questioned 
July  5.^  The  committee  soon  showed  that  it  was  deter- 
mined to  do  everything  it  could  to  discredit  the  provisional 
government.  It  extended  its  investigations  far  beyond  the 
limits  prescribed  and  inquired  into  everything  that  could  be 
found  against  the  members  of  the  provisional  government, 
and  in  particular  against  Ledru-Rollin  and  Louis  Blanc, 
and  also  Caussidiere.  Rumors  of  its  work  spread  abroad, 
and  it  was  frequently  stated  that  Louis  Blanc,  Caussidiere, 
Ledru,  and  even  Lamartine,  would  soon  join  Barbes  and 
Blanqui  at  Vincennes." 

On  August  3  the  committee  of  investigation  was  ready 
to  report.  Ouentin-Bauchart  was  its  spokesman.  He  be- 
gan with  the  causes  of  May  15  and  June  23;  he  dwelt  on 
the  actions  of  certain  members  of  the  provisional  govern- 
ment, on  the  circulars  of  Ledru-Rollin  and  the  Bulletins  of 
the  Republic,  read  parts  of  the  notorious  sixteenth  bulletin, 
mentioned  the  dissensions  in  the  government,  ascribed  the 
Belgian  fiasco  to  the  minister  of  the  interior,  dwelt  upon 
the  unrest  caused  by  the  activities  of  the  Luxembourg  ^  and 
of  the  National  Workshops.  He  then  considered  the  crises 
that  had  occurred  under  the  provisional  government.     He 

1  For  account  of  fictitious  and  absurd  visit  of  Quentin-Bauchart  to 
Ledru,  see  Ganlois,  February  28,  1S74. 

2  London  Morning  Post,  July  i,  2,  quoted  in  Reformc,  July  7,  1848; 
Normanby  2:80-1,  89;  Bonde  212,  220,  243-4.  The  last-named  passage 
states :  "  I  know  for  certain  that  Senard  applied  for  leave  to  take  pro- 
ceedings against  Lamartine  and  Ledru-Rollin,  and  that  it  has  been 
refused  for  fear  it  would  shake  the  republic." 

^  A  commission  presided  over  by  Louis  Blanc  and  concerned  with  dis- 
cussion of  labor  questions. 


369]  'THE  COMMITTEE  OF  INVESTIGATION  215 

claimed  that  Caiissidiere  had  published  insurrectionary  plac- 
ards and  that  Ledru-Rollin  had  aided  the  uprising  of  April 
16.  In  connection  with  May  15,  the  actions  of  the  Club 
des  Clubs  and  of  Barbes'  club  were  emphasized,  and 
Quentin-Bauchart  stated  that  Louis  Blanc  and  Caussidiere 
were  implicated  in  the  insurrection.  As  to  June  23,  the 
government  was  blamed  for  lack  of  diligence,  Caussidiere 
for  being  named  as  a  leader  in  a  placard  of  June  17  and  for 
being  hailed  as  such  by  the  insurgents  on  June  25,  Louis 
Blanc  for  using  his  influence  on  the  National  Workshops  to 
aid  the  insurrection,  Proudhon  for  praising  the  defenders 
of  the  barricades,  Quentin-Bauchart  then  spoke  of  the 
ramifications  of  these  revolts  in  the  departments.  He 
ended  with  the  phrase:  March  17  was  a  popular  manifesta- 
tion, April  16  a  conspiracy,  May  15  an  assault,  June  23 
civil  war.  Amid  constant  interruptions  Quentin-Bauchart 
fi^nished  his  report  and  it  was  clear  to  all  that  it  was  an 
attack  upon  the  provisional  government,  but  particularly 
an  attack  upon  Ledru  and  Louis  Blanc,  together  with  Caus- 
sidiere. Barrot  asked  that  confi.rmatory  documents  be 
published,  and  the  Assembly  agreed. 
Ledru-Rollin  rose  immediately  to  reply : 

I  hear  some  of  my  honorable  friends  say:  Wait  for  the 
printed  documents.  .  .  .  But  what  need  of  them  have  I 
to  defend  a  principle?  For  it  is  not  to  defend  myself 
that  I  am  here;  it  is  to  make  respected  a  sacred  principle 
which  can  be  violated  against  me  today,  against  you  later. 
What  is  the  investigation  anyway?  I  have  been  heard  by  it 
once,  and  not  one  of  the  facts  with  which  my  name  is  con- 
nected, not  one  was  mentioned  before  me.  .  .  .  {Turning  to^ 
wards  Barrot) .  You  look  at  me  and  laugh ;  instead  of  laughing, 
consult  your  memory.  I  appeal  to  your  recollections,  to  your 
honour.  Was  I  questioned  on  one  of  the  facts  with  which  I 
am  reproached?  .  .  .  And  do  you  believe  that  to  refute  you 


21 6   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AXD  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [370 

I  have  need  of  printed  documents  ?  .  .  .  I  appeal  to  all  shades 
of  opinion.  I  say  that  the  Assembly  should  be  astounded  at 
the  report  it  has  heard.  Yes,  astounded ;  for  such  a  precedent 
has  not  existed  in  the  worst  days  of  legislative  assemblies 
....  Whenever  there  have  been  tribunals,  whenever  there 
have  been  general  investigations  by  legislatures,  there  have 
been  individuals  accused,  castigated,  but  nothing,  nothing, 
like  this.  Once  only  ....  after  the  Ninth  of  Thermidor ;  there 
is  no  other  example.  And  you  know  how  that  report  which 
tried  to  stain  the  reputation  of  the  great  incorruptible  of  the 
Revolution,  has  been  despised  by  history !  Do  you  wish  that 
reputation  ?  Shall  I  speak  of  the  revolutionary  tribunal  ?  Oh 
there  to  be  sure  the  accused  was  brought  before  the  court,  he 
gave  his  name,  he  was  condemned.  But  in  what  a  situation 
were  the  judges!  In  the  presence  of  foreigners  and  of  fac- 
tions agitating  within!  .  .  .  Are  we  today  in  the  same  situa- 
tion? And  yet  what  have  you  done?  You  have  accused 
some,  you  have  attacked  others,  and  you  have  not  confronted 
them  with  a  single  witness,  not  one!  You  kept  no  minutes, 
and  yet  you  say  that  that  does  not  matter,  for  later  the  courts 
of  justice  will  intervene.  And  what  is  your  justice  to  me? 
A  material  penalty !  The  loss  of  my  liberty !  What  do  I 
care  for  that?  Did  not  I  sacrifice  all  such  considerations  on 
February  24?  ...  In  marching  to  the  Hotel  de  Ville  I  said 
to  the  friend  the  people  had  just  given  me,  I  said  to  Lamartine  : 
We  are  marching  to  Calvary.  ...  I  have  no  fear  of  your 
material  penalties.  .  .  .  What  does  affect  me  is  the  opinion 
of  the  country,  is  calumny.  .  .  .  For  three  months  attempts 
have  been  made  to  kill  me  morally.  But  out  of  respect  for 
this  revolution  in  peril  I  have  kept  silent;  I  have  remained 
mute.  And  I  am  still  to  wait  four  mortal  days.  You  must 
allow  me  to  explain  without  waiting  for  the  printing  of  your 
report  and  your  confirmatory  documents.  I  shall  do  so  briefly 
without  hatred,  without  anger. 

At  this  point  Ledru  disavowed  responsibility  for  the  six- 
teenth bulletin,  denied  that  he  had  had  any  part  in  conspiracies 


371  ]  THE  COMMITTEE  OF  INVESTIGATION  217 

prior  to  April  16  or  in  any  other  plots,  explained  his  actions 
on  May  15,  and  asserted  his  energy  during  the  June  Days. 

I  made  a  record  of  the  facts  in  case  a  ball  should  hit  me ;  I 
did  not  wish  odious  accusations  to  weigh  on  my  memory,  but 
I  had  to  be  silent  for  a  month,  overwhelmed  by  calumnies.  .  .  . 
Do  not  bear  me  ill-will  for  the  heat  of  improvisation;  one 
thought  lies  deep  in  my  heart;  it  must  come  to  my  lips.  You 
who  formed  the  committee  are  not  my  friends,  you  do  not 
think  as  I  do.  I  respect  your  consciences.  I  alone  in  the  old 
Chamber  thought  it  possible  to  pass  without  transition  front 
the  monarchy  to  the  republic;  is  not  that  my  crime?  Well, 
search  your  hearts ;  are  you  sure  that  you  like  me  have  for- 
gotten all  bitterness?  Are  you  sure  that  you  like  me  have 
forgotten  all  anger?  Are  you  sure  that  in  spite  of  yourselves 
some  of  that  rancour  has  not  gone  into  your  report?  You 
cannot  be  sure,  for  you  are  human  beings ;  and  I  firmly  believe 
that  political  commissions,  no  matter  how  instituted,  are  not 
courts  of  justice ;  they  kill  but  they  do  not  judge.  You  speak 
of  concord,  and  Great  God !  your  report  is  filled  with  dis- 
sension and  hatred.  .  .  .  Your  report  is  not  a  work  of  justice  ; 
it  is  a  piece  of  partisanship.  Parties !  The  republic  should 
have  but  one:  the  grandeur  of  France  and  the  happiness  of 
the  people.  We  dispute  while  it  is  starving.  One  policy 
alone  can  save  us :  union,  concord ;  yes,  save  us  from  perils  at 
home  and  coalitions  abroad.^ 

The  orator's  success  was  complete.  General  Cavaignac, 
who  had  shown  his  hostility  to  Ledru  during  the  past  month, 
left  his  place  and  puljlicly  shook  his  hand.  Changarnier 
tried  to  refute  part  of  this  speech  by  denying  that  T.cdru 
had  caused  the  rappel  to  be  sounded  on  April  \f\  but  l.cdru 
appealed  to  Marrast,  the  newly-elected  president  of  the 
Assembly.  Marrast  in  one  of  his  belated  explanations  com- 
pletely upheld  the  former  minister  of  the  interior.     I.cdru 

^  Discours  poUl'tques  2:40-9.  For  extracts,  .sec  pp.  2,6,  MSA  153, 
i8s,   187,   191- 


2i8   LEDRU-ROLLIX  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [372 

urged  that  the  date  for  the  real  discussion  on  the  report 
be  fixed,  but  no  decision  was  made  that  day.  After  short 
protests  by  Caussidiere  and  Louis  Blanc  the  session  closed. 

The  committee  of  investigation  had  gone  too  far.  The 
Assembly  was  willing  to  take  a  few  steps  backwards  on  the 
road  to  reaction,  but  it  was  not  as  yet  willing  to  retreat  as 
far  as  had  the  committee.  It  still  possessed  some  of  that 
feeling  of  general  good-fellowship  with  which  in  the  open- 
ing session  it  had  hailed  the  republic.  Ledru-Rollin  had 
exactly  gaged  the  sentiment  of  his  audience ;  he  did  not  once 
strike  a  false  note.  His  plea  for  fairness,  his  plea  for  con- 
cord was  received  with  sympathy.  Cavaignac  had  responded 
to  it  when  he  held  out  his  hand.  Marrast  had  responded 
to  it  when  he  gave  Ledru  credit  for  his  part  on  April  16. 
Ledru  had  the  country  with  him.  Only  the  Dehats,  the 
Constifutinncl,  and  the  Avenir  National  had  a  good  word 
to  say  for  the  committee,  and  their  praise  was  not  unalloyed.^ 
The  Dehats,  while  blaming  the  provisional  government  and 
saying :  "  Ledru-Rollin  in  particular  governed  as  a  party 
man,"  added :  "  Ledru-Rollin  defended  himself  with  true 
warmth  and  with  accents  by  which  it  was  hard  not  to  be 
affected."  The  Constitut'wnnel  suspended  its  judgment, 
admitted  that  the  charges  against  Ledru  were  purely 
political,  and  declared :  "  He  spoke  with  conviction.  The 
warmth  of  his  speech,  which  sometimes  sins  by  excess,  was 
today  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  case."  The  republican 
papers  were  emphatic.  The  governmental  National  wrote: 
"  France  will  learn  with  sorrow  what  happened  today.  .  .  . 
The  report  threatens  to  sow  new  germs  of  division  and 
discord.  .  .  .  M.  Ledru-Rollin's  truly  eloquent  speech  pro- 
duced a  profound  impression."  ^  ' 

^  Gradis  I  :  213. 

^  Debats,  Conslitutionnel,  National,  August  4. 


373]  THE  COMMITTEE  OF  INVESTIGATION  219 

So  effective  was  Ledru's  attack  on  the  committee  that 
even  among  the  conservatives,  only  two  deputies  dared  to 
■congratulate  Quentin-Bauchart  on  this,  his  maiden  speech/ 
An  unimportant  conservative  named  Carton  wrote  on 
August  6 : 

My  dear  Ledru,  I  have  just  read  the  report  of  M.  lUiuchart 
and  your  oration.  I  have  kept  aloof  from  politics,  but  I  can- 
not now  resist  the  desire  to  congratulate  you.  I  found  in 
your  fervid  words  that  sincerity  and  that  elevation  of  senti- 
ment which  has  long  attracted  me  to  you,  and  they  are  enough 
to  justify,  if  there  were  any  need  of  justification,  the  purity 
of  your  intentions  and  of  your  conduct  in  the  eyes  of  all 
sensible  people.  In  my  opinion  the  case  the  commission  made 
against  you  is  judged.  I  should  not  have  allowed  myself  to 
trouble  you  about  an  emotion  which,  although  deep,  has  no 
importance  as  an  element  of  public  opinion,  had  I  not  found 
among  my  friends,  old  conservatives  like  myself,  the  same 
opinions  which  I  hold.  This  small  testimonial  of  sympathy 
will,  I  hope,  be  of  some  pleasure  to  you  amidst  the  bitterness 
of  public  life.'- 

"  Whatever  results  flow  from  this  investigation,"  re- 
marked Marrast,  "  it  need  not  be  regretted  since  it  gave  us 
the  speech  of  Ledru-Rollin."  ^  Daniel  Stern  wrote  on 
August  14: 

The  acclamations  drawn  from  an  audience  which,  if  not 
hostile,   was  at  least  unfriendly,   constitute  one  of   the   most 

*  Quentin-Bauchart  i :  80.  Neither  he  nor  Barrot  2 :  292-5  made  a 
satisfactory  reply  to  the  accusations  of  partiality  and  unfairness.  Bar- 
rot's  inordinate  vanity  appears  humorously  when  lie  implies  that  he 
gained  a  success  on  August  3  because  Ix-dru  in  spite  of  his  attacks  was 
unable  to  make  him  reply.  It  should  Ix;  noted,  on  the  other  liaiid,  that 
Quentin-Bauchart  severely  blames  Barrot  ffir  this  very  silence. 

*  LR  Papers  i  :  244.     See  appendix. 
■''  Quentin-Bauchart  i :  79. 


220   LEDRU-ROLLIX  AXD  SECOXD  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [374 

astounding  triumphs  of  revolutionary  eloquence.  That  session, 
left  with  the  Assembly  the  impression  that  if  Ledru-Rollin 
while  in  power  did  not  show  himself  as  prudent,  as  moderate 
as  possible,  if  he  sometimes  swerved  regrettably  from  the  path 
of  duty,  he  remains  by  his  temperament,  by  his  ability,  a 
powerful  defender  of  liberty,  who  exercises  a  decisive  and 
salutary  action  upon  the  country  at  critical  moments.  The 
enemies  of  Ledru-Rollin  gave  him  a  chance  for  a  good  defense 
by  their  outrageous  severity  and  have  aided  him  against  their 
wishes  in  reestablishing  himself  in  public  opinion.^ 

Even  Lord  Normanby  admitted :  "  The  feeling  of  unfair- 
ness at  the  proceedings  was  very  general.  .  .  .  The  manner 
of  Ledru-Rollin  was  for  the  first  time  very  favorable  to 
him.  .  .  .  His  whole  bearing  was  that  of  an  honest  man."  ' 

The  accusations  of  the  committee  of  investigation  w^re 
unfair,  almost  absurd,  and  Ledru-Rollin's  eloquent  rebuttal 
united  an  admirable  refutation  of  the  charges  with  pleas 
for  harmony.  He  had  thrown  back  the  imputation  of  party 
feeling  on  his  accusers.  The  report  was  not  a  bludgeon  but 
a  boomerang. 

The  efforts  of  the  extreme  left  were  now^  directed  to- 
ward securing  an  early  discussion  of  the  report.  Ledru 
demanded  on  August  5  that  a  day  be  set  by  the  Assembly 
for  that  purpose.  Barrot  explained  that  the  committee  was 
doing  its  best  to  have  the  testimony  printed,  but  he  added : 
"  I  declare  that  the  details  of  the  report  are  merely  a  weak 
expression  of  the  testimony."  Again  it  was  Ledru  who 
replied.  He  once  more  pleaded  for  haste,  and  then  scath- 
ingly rebuked  Barrot  for  the  unjustifiable  remark  which 
embittered  the  discussion.  Ouentin-Bauchart  promised  to 
do  his  best  to  expedite  the  printing.     "  You  are  interested 

^  Stern :  Lettres  repubUcaines,  No.  9,  pp.  5-6. 
*  Xormanby  2  :  134-6. 


375]  'THE  COMMITTEE  OF  INVESTIGATION  221 

in  delay,  we  in  hastening  the  discussion,"  interjected  Ledru. 
For  this  remark  President  Marrast  mildly  rebuked  him. 
Caussidiere  supported  the  leader  of  the  Mountain,  but 
Barrot  insisted  that  it  was  as  yet  impossible  to  fix  a  day  for 
the  debate,  and  the  Assembly  agreed  with  him.  Again  the 
honours  of  the  day  lay  with  the  left.  They  had  shown 
their  desire  that  the  truth  be  revealed  whereas  the  right 
through  Barrot's  remark  had  even  more  clearly  displayed 
unjust  partisanship.^ 

On  August  9  Louis  Blanc  renewed  the  discussion. 
Mornay,  a  conservative  member  of  the  investigating  com- 
mittee, now  gave  the  radicals  a  new  ground  for  complaint; 
he  resigned  from  the  committee  because  not  all  the  testi- 
mony collected  was  to  be  printed.  Bauchart  protested  that 
only  a  few  documents  had  been  omitted  as  unessential. 
Louis  Blanc  seized  the  point  and  developed  it.  Bauchart, 
on  whom  Barrot  let  fall  the  brunt  of  the  debate,  again  re- 
plied amid  numerous  interruptions  from  Ledru  and  his 
friends.  Nothing  was  decided.  On  August  12  the  matter 
was  again  brought  up.  The  twenty-first  was  suggested  for 
the  discussion  of  the  report.  "  Too  late,"  declared  Ledru, 
but  the  Assembly  decided  on  that  or  the  following  day. 
Ledru  extracted  a  promise  from  President  Marrast  that  all 
the  testimony  should  be  printed. 

Meanwhile  the  Assembly  had  taken  up  the  question  of 
the  press  and  a  law  had  been  proposed  for  the  bonding 
{cautionnement)  of  newspapers.  This  meant  that  every 
newspaper  must  deposit  with  the  authorities  a  certain  sum 
of  money  on  which  the  government  could  draw  for  any 
fines  inflicted.  Louis  Blanc  opposed  the  law,  declaring  that 
the  liberty  of  the  press  was  the  corollary  of  universal  suf- 
frage and  that  a  deposit  of  money  was  no  guarantee  against 

^  Monileur  for  jSjS,  pp.  1895-6.     For  distorted  version,  sec  Barrot  2: 
295-6. 


222   LEDRU-ROLUN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [376. 

abuse  of  the  right  of  free  sprech.  Fehx  Pyat  protested 
against  any  restrictions  upon  the  press.  Mathieu  de  la 
Drome  asserted  that  requiring  a  bond  was  equivalent  to  re- 
establishing ihe  censorship.  Other  orators  suggested  as 
substitutes  jury  trials  for  infraction  of  the  law  or  the  in- 
fliction of  fines  without  a  preliminary  deposit,  or  they 
denounced  the  plan  as  monarchical  or  illiberal.  The  de- 
fenders of  the  proposal  were  of  two  types.  Some,  like 
Leon  Faucher,  pointed  out  the  troubles  which  had  been 
caused  by  the  newspapers  during  Alay  and  June  and  insisted 
on  a  permanent  law  controlling  them.  Others,  like  the  chief 
government  orator,  the  new  minister  of  justice,  Marie,  de- 
fended the  project  as  temporary  and  as  necessary  during" 
the  disturbed  times. 

Ledru's  opinions  were  as  follows  : 

First  let  me  define  clearly  what  we  want:  liberty  of  thought 
— all  the  world  is  in  accord  on  that;  respect  for  authority — * 
without  this,  society  is  impossible.  It  is  the  solution  of  this 
problem  which  now  presents  itself  ....  to  harmonize  liberty 
and  authority.  ...  If  it  is  a  penalty  that  you  wish,  24,000 
francs  are  not  sufficient.  .  .  .  Rich  people  can  easily  find  that 
amount.  It  must  then  be  a  preventative  that  your  are  seek- 
ing so  that  poor  people  who  have  thoughts  cannot  freely  ex- 
press them. 

The  argument  that  this  law  is  merely  transitory  is  that  of  all 
bad  causes.  A  better  guarantee  would  be  the  compulsory- 
signing  of  all  articles;  the  vehement  journalist  would  be 
restrained  by  the  moral  responsibility  of  his  printed  signature. 
This  is  not  a  new  idea.  Do  not  follow  the  example  of 
monarchical  England  but  that  of  republican  America  which 
invented  new  methods  of  maintaining  liberty. 

In  America,  that  great  countn,-  which  is  worthy  to  set  an 
example,  there  are  no  stamps,  no  bonding;  there  is  absolute 


2yy]  THE  COMMITTEE  OF  INVESTIGATION  223 

liberty.  .  .  .  What  I  am  saying  to  you  is  not  a  passing  thought 
with  me ;  I  supported  this  idea  when  in  opposition ;  I  supported 
it  on  February  24;  I  supported  it  on  June  22  when  I  was  in 
the  government.  .  .  .  Let  me  quote  the  advice  of  the  great 
American  statesmen,  ...  of  one  of  its  presidents  from  whose 
mouth  I  had  the  honour  of  hearing  it ;  it  is  to  decentralize  the 
press  instead  of  centraHzing,  strengthening  it.  .  .  .  Let  the 
newspapers  multiply  so  that  they  may  neutralize  one  another. 

Under  a  monarchy  the  press  takes  the  place  of  universal  suf- 
frage and  acts  as  a  counterbalance  to  the  king.  Under  a 
republic  it  should  be  merely  an  austere  censor,  the  messenger 
of  new  truths.  These  principles  may  not  be  those  of  the 
Assembly,  but  they  are  neither  disorganizing  nor  anarchical. 

I  am  delighted  to  defend  you,  gentlemen  of  the  press,  you 
who  have  so  outrageously,  so  odiously  attacked  me.  Ledru- 
Rollin,  who  speaks  on  your  behalf,  is,  according  to  you,  Ledru- 
Rollin  the  thief,  the  libertine.  It  is  thus  that  you  have  re- 
paid my  devotion  to  the  republic.  ...  1  could  not  reply  to 
these  attacks,  but  I  comforted  myself  with  the  words  of  our 
master,  Franklin:  If  these  are  vices  for  which  they  criticize 
me,  their  censure  will  cause  me  to  reform  ;  if  they  are  calumnies, 
perhaps  some  day  history  in  its  turn  will  expose  them.  .  .  . 
I  believe  that  what  is  proposed  to  you  with  a  good  purpose  is 
bad.  .  .  .  To  enchain,  to  attack  liberty  under  any  pretext  what- 
soever is  some  day  to  kill  the  government  you  wish  to  found 
....  Refer  the  examination  of  this  plan  back  to  the  com- 
mittee, and  you  will  reconcile  the  two  principles  of  authority 
and  liberty,  by  which  societies  should  be  founded  and  with- 
out which  they  cannot  live.^ 

This  speech  made  a  deep  impression  and  was  admittedly 
the  great  oration  in  opposition  to  the  uieasurr.  It  was  re- 
strained and  elocjuent.     The  general  structure  was  logical, 

1  Discours  poliliqucs  2:  50-7- 


224   LEDRU-ROLLIX  AXD  SECOXD  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [378 

but  at  times  the  orator's  emotion  carried  him  to  splendid 
outbursts  that  wandered  slightly  from  the  argument  but  en- 
hanced the  effect.  Note  the  admiration  of  America  and 
the  dislike  of  aristocratic  England. 

Senard,  minister  of  the  interior,  made  what  the  National 
called  a  ''  clever  reply,"  paying  tribute  to  Ledru-Rollin's  pro- 
ject for  signed  articles,  but  insisting  that  it  was  better  to 
await  a  revision  of  the  code  before  adopting  it.  The  next 
day  Faucher  attempted  a  complete  refutation,  ridiculing 
Ledru's  proposed  substitute  and  praising  the  government 
scheme  as  permanently  desirable.  An  amendment  embody- 
ing the  idea  of  signed  articles  and  the  personal  responsibili- 
ity  of  the  author  was  defeated  407  to  342  by  a  combination 
of  the  government  and  the  right,  and  the  bonding  law  was 
then  passed. 

The  way  in  which  Quentin-Bauchart's  speech  of  August 
3  had  been  received  did  not  discourage  the  conservatives. 
Creton,  the  most  inveterate  personal  opponent  of  Ledru  in 
the  legislature,  desired  to  make  an  interpellation  on  the 
expenses  of  the  provisional  government,  and  President 
IMarrast  reluctantly  appointed  August  21  for  the  interpella- 
tion.^ Creton  wished  to  know  how  much  money  had  been 
spent  in  abetting  civil  war,  how  much  had  been  given  to 
those  birds  of  prey,  the  clubs'  delegates  sent  into  the  pro- 
vinces, how  much  had  been  expended  on  armed  propaganda 
in  Belgium  and  Savoy.  The  entire  left  and  centre  of  the 
Assembly  protested  against  Creton's  attack.  Naturally 
Ledru  replied.  He  expostulated  against  this  attempt  to 
stir  up  ill-feeling.  He  explained  how  impossible  were  any 
irregularities,  how  every  cent  of  expenditure  had  been  ap- 
proved by  the  entire  provisional  government;  accordingly 
"  its  eleven  members  must  have  been  my  accomplices ;  in 

*  For  letters  of  Marrast  to  Creton  and  of  Creton  to  Ledru,  see  ap- 
pendix. 


379] 


THE  COMMITTEE  OF  IXl'ESTIGATIOX 


that  case  the  dispute  descends  from  the  odious  to  the 
absurd."  Ledru  gave  details  as  to  all  the  expenses  that 
might  be  questioned.  He  declared  himself  willing  to  aid  in 
any  further  investigations.  This  plain  explanation  might 
have  cleared  the  air  if  Ledru  had  not  been  carried  away, 
as  he  was  so  frequently,  into  accusing  his  enemies.  *'  There 
has  been  a  revolution,''  he  said  in  closing;  "before  it  you 
belonged  to  the  party  of  the  blind,  and  you  have  not  yet 
opened  your  eyes.  You  are  one  of  its  incurable  enemies."  ^ 
Creton  resumed  his  attack,  dwelling  upon  the  irruptions  into 
Belgium  and  Savoy.  Ledru-Rollin  interrupted  him  with 
details,  and  President  jMarrast  reminded  the  disputants  that 
they  were  wandering  from  the  subject  before  the  house. 
Goudchaux  and  Duclere,  former  ministers  of  the  treasury, 
repelled  Creton's  accusations.  Finally  the  subject  was 
dropped,  but  a  few  days  later  a  committee  was  appointed 
to  examine  into  the  expenditures  of  the  provisional  govern- 
ment. 

By  the  seventeenth  of  August  the  first  volume  of  the 
Quentin-Bauchart  report  was  in  the  hands  of  Marrast.  who, 
amid  the  lively  interest  of  the  Assembly,  pointed  out  pri- 
vately certain  passages  to  Ledru-Rollin."  .\  few  days  later 
the  two  other  volumes  appeared.  Karcly  has  a  committee 
of  investigation  shown  such  unfairness.  It  had  liccn  told 
to  investigate  the  events  of  May  15  and  of  the  June  Days, 
and  yet  it  had  devoted  but  little  of  its  attention  to  those 
events.  It  had  obviously  neglected  evidence  that  would  im- 
plicate monarchists  and  had  mafic  a  painstaking  research 
into  ever}'thing  that  might  discredit  their  oppoiu'iits.  Some 
justification  might  l:>e  found  for  investigating  the  earlier 
manifestations  of  March  17  and  .\pril  16,  and  the  committee 

'  Discours  poliliqucs  2:58-64.     I'nr  extracts,  .sec  pp.  (u-^.  \(\.\. 
*  Journal  dcs  Villcs  ct  Camfagnes,  August  18,  184X. 


226  LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [380 

cannot  be  seriously  blamed  for  inquiring  into  the  dissen- 
sion within  the  provisional  government  or  the  so-called 
cabals  at  the  ministry  of  the  interior.  But  no  fair-minded 
individual  can  find  any  reason  for  making  elaborate  re- 
searches into  so  unrelated  a  matter  as  the  complicity  of  the 
government  in  the  Belgian  fiasco  of  Risquons-tout,  and  no 
words  can  sufficiently  condemn  the  inexcusable  broadening  of 
the  sphere  of  inquiry  to  include  the  personal  honesty  of 
Ledru-RoUin.  The  committee  seemed  to  take  great  pleasure 
in  inserting  in  their  report  every  calumny  they  could  unearth 
against  Ledru-Rollin.  Unfortunately  for  it,  however,  the 
evidence  when  sifted  only  proved  his  unimpeachable  in- 
tegrity. The  committee  had  summoned  all  the  prominent 
men  of  the  republic  but  had  arbitrarily  questioned  them  on 
a  few  matters,  never  on  the  matters  of  which  they  were 
accused.  Ledru,  for  instance,  had  been  asked  about  the 
manifestation  of  May  15,  Sobrier,  the  National  Workshops, 
the  June  Days,  the  finances  of  the  provisional  goverrmient,. 
but  never  a  W'Ord  as  to  the  Risquons-tout  affair,  never  a 
word  as  to  the  cabals  at  his  ministry,  never  a  word  as  to 
his  relations  with  the  Club  des  Clubs.  Yet  these  were  all 
matters  into  which  the  committee  had  inquired  and  con- 
cerning which  Ledru's  statements  in  defense  of  his  actions 
should  certainly  have  been  considered  of  importance.  Finally, 
all  the  calumnies  not  explicitly  refuted  (and  the  committee 
had  been  careful  to  avoid  questioning  those  who  might  have 
refuted  them)  had  been  included  as  truths  in  the  report. 
To  sum  up,  the  committee  had  devoted  most  of  its  energ>' 
to  fields  far  out  of  its  jurisdiction  and  had  made  investiga- 
tions with  the  deliberate  purpose  of  collecting  everything 
it  could  find  unfavorable  to  its  opponents.  Particularly 
had  it  aimed  at  Ledru-Rollin,  Louis  Blanc,  and  Caussidiere. 
And  yet  Barrot  had  the  audacity  to  maintain  in  his  memoirs 
that  the  committee  acted  impartially  and  that  Ledru  was  im- 


381]  THE  COMMITTEE  OF  IXFESTIGATIOX  227 

plicated  in  plots  in  April  and  was  morally  responsible  for 
the  insurrections  in  ISIay  and  June/  Nearly  all  the  second- 
ary writers  as  well  as  most  of  the  contemporaries  who  have 
investigated  the  matter  unite  in  condemning  the  unfairness 
of  the  report.  The  extremely  conservative  Victor  Pierre 
is  forced  to  call  it  "insufficient  and  exaggerated";  Gradis 
finds  it  extreme;  only  La  Gorce  defends  its  "  great  revela- 
tions." "  In  fact  the  Ouentin-Bauchart  report  makes  great 
revelations  and  is  invalua1:)le  to  historians  of  the  epoch. 
When  glanced  at  superficially  it  seems  to  contain  many  ac- 
cusations against  the  prominent  republicans;  when  examined 
carefully,  it  constitutes  their  best  defense. 

Unfortunately  the  members  of  the  Assembly  could  not 
make  a  detailed  analysis  of  this  voluminous  report  and  there- 
fore believed  many  of  its  implications.  Still,  on  most  of 
them  was  made  the  same  impression  of  unfairness  and  party 
hatred  that  had  been  made  by  the  speech  of  Ouentin- 
Bauchart.  Ledru-Rollin  apparently  spent  a  couple  of  days 
studying  the  report  and  was  fully  prepared  to  give  vent  to 
his  indignation  when  the  great  debate  opened  on  August 

Ledru's  speech  on  this  occasion  was  largely  a  repetition 
of  his  speech  of  August  3.'     He  gave  an  account  of  the 

1  Barrot  2:275-292.  Cf.  the  sliRhtly  but  only  slightly  fairer  dcl'disc 
of  Qucntin-Bauchart  in  his  memoirs  i  :  67-70.  For  a  just  contcmiiorary 
opinion,  see  C-arnicr  Pages  11:440-454-  I'or  extracts  from  report,  sec 
chapters  iii-xiv,  passiut. 

'Pierre  1:457-8;  Gradis  2:208-9;  La  Gorce  1:416-4^6.  Liberal  writ- 
ers are  unanimous  in  strong  disapproval.  I^)r  instance.  Ilauu-I  -.•<>*<-Q 
calls  it  an  "  odious  report  ". 

•  He  did  not  take  part  in  two  votes  of  the  twenty-second  nor  in  one 
of  the  twenty-third. 

*  Before  Ledru's  speech  there  had  been  a  discussion  on  various  minor 
matters.  For  instance,  Frangois  Arago  had  testified  as  to  se«linotis 
meetings,  cabals  at  the  ministry  of  the  interior,  and  he  had  to  defend 
himself  against  the  combined  attacks  of  Ix-rlrn,  Pi.rtalis,  Landrin,  and 
I'avre.     For  details,  see  p.   149. 


228   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [382 

various  political  investigations  under  the  first  republic  and 
the  tribulations  which  had  followed  from  them.  He  at- 
tacked the  committee  headed  by  Barrot  and  Quentin- 
Bauchart  as  surpassing  all  previous  committees  in  unfair- 
ness, and  he  accused  it  of  wishing  to  ruin  the  men  of 
February.  He  defended  his  actions  in  connection  with  the 
circulars,  the  commissioners,  the  Belgian  fiasco.  He  violently 
attacked  the  men  who  had  founded  the  July  Monarchy  and 
who,  when  control  of  it  had  slipped  from  their  hands,  had 
attacked  its  foundations  and  had  undermined  it  without  hav- 
ing had  any  new  ideas  with  which  to  replace  it.  He  ac- 
cused these  liberal  monarchists  of  a  similar  purpose  of  des- 
troying the  republic  without  having  any  substitute.  He 
refuted  the  idea  that  the  republic  had  caused  the  financial 
crisis  and  the  misery  of  the  people,  for  both  had  antedated 
it.  He  digressed  to  advocate  the  creation  of  banks  that 
should  lend  money  to  farmers  on  mortgages.  He  denied  that 
there  was  a  red  republic. 

The  red  republic  is  a  phantom.  ...  It  does  not  frighten 
me,  and  this  is  why:  It  emphasizes  a  fact  to  which  my  heart 
and  my  eyes  have  long  been  open,  the  profound  sufferings  of 
society.  Now,  that  it  is  mistaken  as  to  the  remedy  is  my  be- 
lief. But  the  means  of  proving  that  it  is  mistaken  is  to  do 
something  to  aid  the  country.  The  remedy  is  not  in  a  con- 
stitution, I  assure  you ;  that  is  not  the  remedy.  Constitutions ! 
We  have  had  a  sufficient  number  to  make  us  the  laughing 
stock  of  the  world.  It  is  social  reforms  that  we  need.  Let 
me  tell  you  that  there  is  no  red  republic;  there  are  only  de- 
luded men  who,  due  to  their  sufferings,  may  be  carried  away ; 
but  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  great  majority,  the  unanimity 
of  the  country,  is  attached  to  the  true  republic.  .  .  .  vShall  I 
tell  you  what  the  true  republic  is  ?  It  is  not  the  word  republic, 
it  is  not  merely  universal  suffrage ;  it  is  respect  for  the  family, 
respect  for  property.  .  .  .  The  family!     We  do  not  wish  its 


383]  THE  COMMITTEE  OF  INVESTIGATION  229 

benefits  to  extend  to  the  few,  we  wish  them  to  extend  to  all. 
To  make  this  possible  there  must  be  work  for  all.  Is  there 
any  family  for  the  child  brought  up  in  an  orphan  asylum?  Is 
there  any  family  for  the  girl  who  cannot  earn  her  living  and 
becomes  a  prostitute?  ...  Is  there  any  family  for  the  aged 
workingman  forced  to  die  in  a  public  hospital?  We  wish  the 
family  to  be  universal  ....  we  do  not  wish  to  restrain  it, 
but  to  extend  and  multiply  it.  .  .  .  Let  me  say  that  those  people 
are  fools  who  do  not  understand  that  property  is  the  basis  of 
liberty.  We  also  wish  it,  for  we  ask  that  the  workingman  be 
given  either  credit  or  the  instruments  of  labor.  .  .  .  May  the 
spirit  of  liberty  inspire  you  in  this  solemn  moment.  .  .  .  Noth- 
ing comes  from  talking  incessantly  of  union  and  concord ; 
these  sentiments  must  be  implanted  in  your  hearts.  Remember 
that  in  beginning  a  series  of  proscriptions,  all  parties,  one 
after  another  may  be  subjected  to  them,  and  the  result  will  be 
not  only  the  loss  of  liberty  in  France  and  Europe,  but  the  loss 
of  liberty  throughout  the  world. ^ 

I^dru's  speech  made  a  good  impression  but,  as  the  Dchats 
and  the  Constitiitionnel  declared,  it  was  far  more  studied 
than  that  of  August  3  and  had  not  the  spontaneous  sincerity 
nor  the  eloquent  warmth  of  the  earlier  utterance.  The  most 
effective  part  was  that  devoted  to  making  clear  the  basic 
principles  of  the  radicals.  The  Assembly  was  with  Ledru 
before  he  started,  and  his  unaccustomed  restraint  kept  it 
with  him  to  the  end  whether  he  denounced  his  opj>onents, 
defended  himself,  or  pleaded  for  harmony.  The  oration 
was  well-timed,  but  it  cannot  Ije  considered  one  of  Lcdru's 
greatest.^ 

^  Discours  pnliliqucs  2:65-81.     I'Or  extracts,  sec  pp.  101-2,  116,  14R. 

*  Only  SpuIIer  193  consiflcrs  tliis  sjicccli  lx.-ttcr  than  the  one  of  the 
third.  For  interesting  accounts  of  the  session,  sec  Normanhy  2:173- 
183;  Caussidiere  2:  273-285.  Qucntin-Hauchart  i  :  85-104  hcHeves  I-cdru's 
speech  was  fairly  good  but  based  on  false  accusations  of  the  committee. 
Barret  2:300-313  makes  a  violent  but  inefTectual  refutation  of  the 
arguments. 


2^0  LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [384 

The  next  speaker  was  Louis  Blanc.  He  contrasted  the 
clemency  of  the  republicans  after  February  with  the  action 
of  the  conser\^atives,  and  he  defended  his  own  words  and 
actions  since  February  24.  Other  members  of  the  extreme 
left  spoke  briefly.  Finally  Caussidiere  closed  the  debate, 
abandoning  his  customary  picturesque  improvisations  for  a 
labored,  written  defense.  The  hostile  house,  bored,  was 
unmoved. 

But  now  Corne,  the  attorney-general,  demanded  permis- 
sion to  prosecute  Louis  Blanc  and  Caussidiere  for  their  parts 
in  the  uprisings  of  May  and  June.  The  prosecution  of 
Ledru-Rollin  was  not  asked;  it  would  have  been  doomed  to 
failure  as  Ledru  had  won  the  approval  of  the  Assembly. 
Corne  stated  that  the  request  was  due  to  researches  inde- 
pendent of  the  committee  of  investigation,  but  this  state- 
ment deceived  no  one  as  to  the  connection  between  the  de- 
mand and  the  Ouentin-Bauchart  report.  Several  members 
of  the  Mountain  defended  the  accused  deputies.  Ledru  took 
part  in  the  debate  only  to  oppose  a  vote  of  urgency  and  to 
interrupt  conservative  orators.  The  efforts  of  the  extreme 
left  were  in  vain;  first  urgency  was  voted,  then  permission 
to  prosecute  Louis  Blanc  and  Caussidiere  for  their  part  in 
the  uprising  of  May  15.^ 

The  reaction  had  strongly  set  in.  The  first  political  pro- 
secutions had  begun.  The  minor  individuals  implicated^ 
in  the  affairs  of  May  and  June  had  been  tried  by  military 
courts  and  deported.  But  the  leaders  in  these  insurrections 
were  to  'be  given  a  civil  trial.  Some  of  these  were  in  prison : 
Blanqui,  Barbes,  Raspail,  Albert.  Others  succeeded  in 
escaping,  Louis  Blanc  and  Caussidiere  among  them.  They 
settled    in    England    and    founded    the    colony    of    exiles, 

^  Permission  to  prosecute  Caussidiere  for  his  part  in  the  June  Days 
•was  refused;  that  to  prosecute  Blanc  in  connection  with  the  June  Days 
was  not  asked. 


385]  THE  COMMITTEE  OF  INVESTIGATION  23 1 

which  fulminated  against  the  moderate  and  conservative 
governments  of  the  repubHc,  and  later  against  the  empire. 
Thus  the  legislature  of  the  republic  had  proscribed  the  ex- 
tremists. Whose  turn  would  be  next?  The  republic  was 
henceforth  to  be  a  republic  of  the  bourgeoisie  as  the  pre- 
vious regime  had  been  a  monarchy  of  the  bourgeoisie. 
February  had  aroused  the  hope  of  a  social  transformation; 
August  had  ended  this  hope.  Not  only  were  no  new  re- 
forms to  l3e  established,  but  many  of  those  established  by 
the  provisional  government  were  to  be  abolished.  The  re- 
public had  become  conservative. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

The  Constitution  of  1848 

The  chief  duty  of  the  Constituent  Assembly  was  to  draw 
a  constitution  for  the  republic.  On  September  2  Liechten- 
berger,  a  member  of  the  left,  presented  a  bill  which  pro- 
vided that  the  state  of  siege  should  be  raised  before  the  con- 
stitution was  discussed.  Ledru  defended  this  proposal.  He 
declared  that  the  path  which  the  Assembly  was  entering  was 
a  baneful  one,  that  not  physical  but  moral  force  would  main- 
tain a  constitution.  He  cited  the  evil  results  that  flowed 
from  constitutions  composed  under  extraordinary  condi- 
tions, as  notably  in  the  cases  of  the  Spanish  constitutions 
and  of  the  French  charters  of  18 14  and  1830.  He  showed 
how  the  press,  restrained  from  criticizing  during  the  period 
of  drawing  up  the  constitution,  would  attack  it  relentlessly 
when  completed.  He  ridiculed  the  idea  that  the  state  of 
siege  was  necessary;  sufficient  forces,  he  said,  could  be  kept 
at  the  capital  to  insure  quiet  without  maintaining  the  state 
of  siege.  He  closed  with  the  words  :  "  Inaugurate  your  con- 
stitution with  what  is  most  venerable,  most  fertile,  most  in- 
destrucible  in  the  word,  the  immortal  principle  of  liberty."  ^ 
This  speech  is  to  be  praised  for  its  restraint ;  it  is  adequate 
to  the  occasion  but  is  remarkable  neither  for  eloquence  nor 
for  clear  logic  of  argumentation.  After  a  few  other 
speeches,  the  motion  to  raise  the  state  of  siege  was  defeated 
529  to  140,  only  the  extreme  left  and  a  few  scattered  votes 
supporting  it. 

'^  Disc  ours  poUtiques  2:82-9, 
232  [386 


387]  ^^^  COXSTITUTIOX  OF  1848  233 

Numerous  attempts  were  now  made  to  incorporate  in  the 
constitution  an  amendment  guaranteeing  the  right  to  labor, 
thus  to  fulfill  the  promise  of  the  provisional  government. 
A  final  effort  in  this  direction  was  made  by  ]Mathieu  de  la 
Drome.  Many  orators  spoke  for  or  against  his  amendment. 
The  most  effective  speech  in  opposition  was  that  of  Thiers. 
Of  those  who  spoke  for  the  amendment  the  most  conspi- 
cuous were  Cremieux,  Lamartine,  a  Catholic  socialist  named 
Arnaud  de  I'Ariege,  and  Ledru-Rollin.  On  September  12 
Ledru  addressed  the  Assembly. 

He  said. 

The  orator  who  has  just  quitted  the  tribune  [Tocqueville] 
has  referred  to  the  great  principles  of  our  glorious  French  Re- 
volution. There  I  agree  with  him.  He  has  declared  that  the 
right  to  labor  is  a  socialist  invention.  Socialism  is  the  worst 
thing  in  the  entire  world,  he  cried,  for  it  is  communism.  ...  I 
no  more  desire  communism  than  does  he.  .  .  .  The  right  to 
labor  was  a  favorite  thought  with  the  statesmen  of  the 
Convention. 

Of  Robespierre  for  instance.  Two  things  are  needed :  for 
the  strong  the  right  to  work,  and  for  the  infirm  the  right  to 
assistance;  of  these  the  Assembly  wishes  to  guarantee  only 
the  latter.  Ledru  drew  a  pitiful  picture  of  the  man  who 
could  not  find  work,  and  he  showed  how  society  woukl  do 
nothing  for  such  a  person  but  send  him  to  jail.  The  prin- 
ciple of  the  right  to  lal)or,  he  declared,  would  not  lead  to  a 
socialist  Utopia;  it  was  a  principle  of  the  great  revolution. 
What  precisely  did  the  word  socialist  signify?  If  any  one 
who  desired  social  changes  was  meant,  Tocqueville  and  his 
friends  were  wrong  to  fulminate  against  such  an  in<livi(lual, 
for  he  was  merely  a  good  democrat  and  no  extremist. 
Ledru  declared  that  the  difference  between  his  opponents 
and  himself  was  that  while  both  deplored  the  misery  of  the 


234   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [388 

people,  they  thought  the  misery  of  the  people  inevitable  but 
he  considered  it  remediable.  His  doctrine,  he  said,  em- 
bodied the  true  spirit  of  Christianity,  was  idealistic  not 
materialistic.  Again  Ledru  drew  an  affecting  picture  of 
the  poor.  He  then  turned  from  an  appeal  to  the  emotions 
to  an  appeal  to  reason.  He  advocated  aid  to  agriculture  in 
order  to  draw  the  surplus  population  from  the  cities.  He 
denied  that  state  banks  which  would  lend  money  freely  on 
mortgages,  a  measure  already  applied  in  Algeria,  would  limit 
the  liberty  of  industry.  "  I  wish,"  he  said,  "  to  make  of 
the  state  neither  a  producer  nor  a  manufacturer,  but  an  in- 
telligent protector."  The  statement  that  these  ideas  were 
new  was  not  true,  for  they  had  been  advocated  ever  since  the 
first  revolution.  The  statement  that  work  could  not  be 
found  for  jewelers  and  other  skilled  workingmen  was  not 
pertinent,  as  no  one  was  asking  that  the  principle  be  ex- 
tended to  such  persons;  that  would  be  absurd.  The  state 
can  aid  such  men  only  by  temporary  monetary  existence. 
Let  us  remember  the  motto  of  the  Lyons  workingmen :  Live 
by  working  or  die  fighting!  Let  us  guard  against  further 
trouble  like  that  at  Lyons  by  incorporating  the  right  to 
labor  in  the  constitution.  "  This  principle  must  be  recog- 
nized; for  if  you  close  the  door  to  hope,  I  fear  the  republic 
will  greatly  suffer."  ^ 

This  speech  is  interesting  as  defining  Ledru's  position  in 
regard  to  socialism.  He  was  opposed  to  communism  and 
Utopianism  but  favored  social  reforms,  especially  farmers' 
loan  banks.  Note  also  his  devotion  to  the  first  republic,  his 
general  moderation,  his  cheerful  recognition  of  the  good  in- 
tentions of  his  opponents.  This  discourse  is  a  combination 
of  effective  appeals  to  the  emotions  and  strong  but  ill-ar- 
ranged arguments  from  reason. 

1  Disc  ours  poUtiques  2 :  90-103. 


389]  THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  1848  27,^ 

Mathieu's  amendment  introducing  into  the  constitution 
the  right  to  labor  was  replaced  by  one  of  Glais-Bizoin,  a 
version  modified  so  as  to  satisfy  certain  members  of  the  left, 
but  even  this  version  only  attracted  187  votes  as  against  596. 

It  was  soon  afterwards  proposed  that  the  constitution  be 
submitted  to  the  people.  Ledru  in  a  few  words  declared 
that  in  all  previous  cases  that  question  had  been  the  last  to 
be  debated,  and  he  advocated  postponing  it  until  the  con- 
stitution was  completed.  The  previous  question  was  voted. 
When  the  subject  was  taken  up  again  later  in  the  year,  the 
Assembly  voted  against  submission  to  the  people ;  the  Moun- 
tain did  not  vote. 

On  the  question  whether  the  legislature  should  be  bica- 
meral or  should  consist  of  a  single  chamber,  Ledru  voted 
with  the  majority  in  favor  of  the  latter  plan.  When  the 
method  of  electing  the  president  came  up  for  discussion, 
three  schemes  were  proposed.  The  committee  on  the  con- 
stitution desired  election  by  an  absolute  majority  of  the 
voters.  Jules  Grevy  proposed  an  amendment  that  there 
be  no  president,  merely  a  chairman  of  the  council  of 
ministers.  The  government's  suggestion  (amendments  of 
Flocon  and  Leblanc)  was  the  election  of  the  president  by 
the  legislature.  The  Mountain  was  divided  on  the  ques- 
tion.^ Ledru  and  most  of  the  extreme  left  supported  the 
Grevy  amendment;  Flocon  and  a  ])art  of  the  Mountain  sup- 
ported the  government  amendment.  Both  were  rejected, 
and  only  a  few  Montagnards  followed  Ledru  in  voting  for 
direct  election  by  the  people  as  a  satisfactory  substitute. 
Finally  on  November  4  came  the  vote  on  the  constitution 
as  a  whole;  it  w^as  passed  639  to  30.  The  extreme  left  was 
divided.     Ledru,  Flocon,  Mathicu,  Linicnnais  and  most  of 

1  There  was  a  rJebatc  in  the  Rue  dc  Taitlwut  on  September  28  on 
what  position  the  Mountain  should  take,  but  no  decisioti  was  made.— 
Debats,  September  29,  1848. 


236   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [390 

the  Mountain  purposely  abstained  from  voting.  Pyat  and 
a  few  Montagnards  joined  the  sociahsts  in  voting  in  the 
negative.  David  d' Angers  and  many  of  the  members  of 
the  extreme  left  voted  for  the  constitution. 

After  the  defeat  of  the  government  on  the  question  of  the 
method  of  electing  the  president,  Senard  and  two  other 
ministers  resigned,  but  Cavaignac  remained  in  office  with 
the  majority  of  his  cabinet.  So  uncertain  was  Cavaignac's 
policy  that  it  was  not  known  whether  he  would  turn  to  the 
left  or  to  the  right  centre  for  the  new  ministry.  Finally  he 
announced  his  choice  of  Dufaure  and  two  other  conserva- 
tives.^ On  October  16  Dufaure,  the  new  minister  of  the 
interior,  asked  for  an  appropriation  of  100,000  francs 
needed  to  preserve  order.  Landrin  declared  that  this  was  a 
vote  of  confidence  and  that  he  refused  his  vote  to  a  reac- 
tionary cabinet,  one  that  contained  a  former  minister  of 
Louis  Philippe.  Cavaignac  in  a  colorless  speech  said  that 
he  desired  conciliation.  Portalis  also  desired  conciliation, 
but  he  declared  that  that  was  beside  the  question.  Why 
were  the  ministers  dismissed?  he  asked.  Was  it  because 
they  wished  to  raise  the  state  of  siege?  Senard  explained 
that  he  too  was  of  the  party  of  conciliation;  several  times  he 
had  felt  it  his  duty  to  resign  and  finally  he  had  done  so 
after  the  adverse  vote  on  the  mode  of  election  of  the  presi- 
dent. Dupont  de  Bussac,  another  member  of  the  left, 
wished  to  know  why  Cavaignac,  Marie,  and  the  other  min- 
isters had  not  resigned  also,  for  they  had  been  more  deeply 
involved  in  the  discussion  than  Senard.  Cavaignac  asserted 
that  he  did  not  consider  the  adverse  vote  one  of  loss  of 

'  "  It  is  even  asserted  that  he  hesitated  till  the  last  minute  between 
Ledru-Rollin  and  Dufaure,  between  Flocon  and  Vivien." — Gradis  2:307. 
The  Reforme  of  November  15  denied  that  Cavaignac  had  offered  Ledru 
a  portfolio,  as  the  Presse  claimed.  A  rumor  of  an  offer  of  a  cabinet 
position  to  Ledru  had  circulated  earlier;  see  Times,  September  23. 


o^l]  THE  COXSTITUTIOX  OF  1S48  j.^ 

confidence,  and  that  he  was  sorry  to  see  Senard  and  his  two 
colleagues  resign. 

Ledru-Rollin  was  the  next  speaker.  He  believed  that  if 
Senard  resigned  the  entire  cabinet  should  have  resigned  with 
him.  The  only  explanation  of  the  present  situation,  he  said, 
is  that  a  new  attack  on  liberty  is  being  planned,  to  which  the 
retiring  ministers  would  not  agree.  Governments  rule  by 
the  support  of  the  majority,  but  a  majority  united  by  prin- 
ciples ;  the  government  should  not  change  its  principles  as 
the  majority  in  the  chamber  changes.  There  are  two  types 
of  conciliation,  that  with  tried  republicans  and  that  with  the 
opponents  of  democracy.  "  The  pact  you  have  made  is  no 
longer  a  pact  with  principles  but  a  pact  with  men."  "  A 
pact  with  France,"  cried  Freslon,  who  had  entered  the 
cabinet  with  Dufaure.  "  Do  you  believe,"  retorted  Ledru, 
"  that  the  opinions  represented  by  M.  Senard  are  not  the 
opinions  of  France?"  Freslon  replied:  "  M.  Senard  sup- 
ports us."  President  Marrast  asked  Freslon  to  be  quiet. 
"  I  thought  that  the  first  virtue  of  a  minister  was  patience," 
continued  Ledru,  and  even  the  bench  of  ministers  joined  in 
the  laughter.  Ledru  declared  that  the  principles  of  the  ex- 
isting cabinet  were  no  longer  those  of  l''ebruary,  for  re- 
publican officials  throughout  France  were  menaced  with  dis- 
missal. The  program  of  the  reconstructed  ministry  "  is  so 
vague,  so  general  that  it  can  be  fundamentally  changed 
without  fear  of  having  its  words  called  up  against  it."  All 
through  this  speech  interruptions  had  been  frequent,  and 
Ledru  had  digressed  from  his  line  of  argument  to  make 
bitter  short  replies;  now  these  intcrruj)tions  became  so 
numerous  that  they  gave  Ledru,  wlio  had  i)r()l)ably  finished 
all  he  wished  to  say,  a  chance  to  make  an  effective  ending: 
"  I  am  not  accustomed  to  the  systematic  interruptions  which 
only  the  most  practiced  orator  can  resist.  In  the  nnme  of 
liberty  of  speech  and  for  ihe  sake  of  my  f)wn  dignity  I  pre- 


o  ^8   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [392 

fer  to  leave  the  tribune."  The  greatest  disorder  followed 
this  remark.     Some  deputies  almost  came  to  blows. 

As  an  oration  this  speech  is  very  poor,  for  Ledru  spent 
much  of  his  time  in  replying  to  interruptions,  but  in  almost 
every  case  he  came  out  victorious  from  these  skirmishes  and 
dealt  many  telling  blows  against  the  new  ministry.  This 
speech  marked  the  end  of  Ledru's  moderate  opposition  to 
those  in  po'.  ?er.  To  a  government  including  Senard,  wdio 
in  spite  of  his  comparative  conservatism  was  a  recognized 
old-line  republican,  Ledru  could  give  his  benevolent  sup- 
port ;  one  including  Dufaure,  who  had  been  a  minister  under 
Louis  Philippe  and  who  was  still  suspected  of  Orleanist  lean- 
ings, he  could  oppose  only  with  an  attitude  of  relentless  an- 
tagonism. The  evolution  of  the  cabinets  might  here  be 
noted.  The  executive  commission  had  had  a  cabinet  of  the 
lefts.  The  first  cabinet  of  Cavaignac  had  been  composed 
of  members  of  the  left  centre  and  the  centre;  the  second 
drew  its  support  from  the  centre  and  the  right  centre.  That 
of  Barrot  soon  to  become  into  power  was  to  be  a  ministry 
of  the  rights. 

Senard  replied  to  Ledru.  insisting  on  the  republicanism 
of  the  reconstructed  Cavaignac  cabinet.  But  Ducoux,  an- 
other retiring  minister,  declared  that  he  had  left  the  govern- 
ment because  it  w^as  no  longer  truly  republican.  Dufaure 
maintained  that  in  the  Constituent  Assembly  he  had  proved 
his  worth  and  the  sincerity  of  his  republicanism.  A  vote 
was  finally  taken,  and  the  appropriation  asked  by  the  min- 
istry was  granted  by  570  votes  to  155.  The  extreme  left 
and  the  left  (Lamartine,  Favre,  Landrin,  etc.)  composed  the 
minority. - 

1  Moniteur  2686. 

'  At  the  same  session  Ledru  aiid  fiftj'-nine  other  members  of  the 
Mountain  presented  a  petition  in  favor  of  the  amnesty  of  all  political 
prisoners. 


393]  '^^^  COXSTITUTION  OF  1848  039 

During  September  an  attempt  had  been  made  to  draw  all 
parties  of  the  left  into  one  united  group.  For  this  purpose 
Ledru  and  fifteen  other  members  of  the  Mountain  organized 
a  banquet  for  September  22  at  the  Chalet  in  the  Champs 
Elysees.  About  a  hundred  and  fifty  deputies  attended. 
Along  with  the  socialists  and  radicals  of  the  Mountain  there 
were  present  independent  members  of  the  extreme  left  such 
as  Flocon  and  Etienne  Arago,  and  memljers  of  the  left 
proper  such  as  Favre  and  Portalis.^  About  two  hundred 
and  fifty  other  guests  were  also  present.  Many  speeches 
were  made,  but  only  that  of  Ledru  attracted  wide-spread 
attention. 

Ledru-Rollin  gave  the  toast : 

To  the  anniversary  of  September  22,  1792!  To  that  memor- 
able day  on  which  the  Convention  proclaimed  the  republic! 
....  Yes,  to  the  republic  that  our  fathers  decreed  and  which 
we  are  bound  to  perpetuate  by  giving  it  an  indestructible 
basis  in  social  institutions.  [He  continued]  :  Doubtless  pct^ple 
will  say :  Your  foolish  hopes  are  nothing  but  socialism  !  When 
our  fathers  aljolished  all  monastic  vows,  was  that  socialism  or 
politics?  When  they  established  equality  of  taxation,  was  that 
socialism  or  politics?  .  .  . 

Ledru  claimed  that  the  assertion  of  the  right  to  lal)or  was 
republicanism  not  socialism.  He  protested  against  the  fear 
of  words  such  as  socialism.  The  eyes  of  the  timid  but 
honest  republicans  will  be  opened,  he  said.  The  royalists 
need  not  be  feared  if  a  republic  is  really  founded;  if  the  sup- 
porters of  the  republic  are  not  sincere,  there  is  danger. 
Nothing  has  been  done  for  the  f)eoj)lc  since  I'ebruary  24. 
The  taxes  on  salt  aiifl  on  meat,  aljolished  by  the  i>rovisional 

'  Of  the  121  deputies  mcntioncfl  by  name  amoMR  the  jfucsls.  ?r;  I*- 
longed  to  the  Mountain,  19  to  the  independent  extreme  left,  43  to  the 
left. — Democratic  pacifiquc,  October  9;  Cotnlilutiottncl,  October  11. 


240  LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [394 

government,  have  been  reestablished.  The  repubhc  moves 
in  the  old  monarchic  grooves.  Money  is  not  lacking  with 
which  beneficent  institutions  may  be  founded.  It  was  pro- 
cured for  Louis  XIV  and  for  the  first  republic;  after  thirty 
years  of  peace  it  should  be  more  plentiful  than  then.  No, 
money  is  merely  hiding  itself ;  it  is  not  lacking.  Even  Eng- 
land was  able  to  find  money  for  the  Napoleonic  wars.  The 
real  trouble  today  is  the  lack  of  work,  and  that  must  be  re- 
medied. It  is  not  money  that  is  lacking  but  leadership. 
Our  fathers  of  the  first  revolution  lived  by  expedients,  a 
necessity  in  all  revolutions.  The  audacity  of  Cambon  saved 
France.  A  remedy  must  be  found  for  all  these  difficulties. 
We  must  act.  But  the  primal  need  is  that  of  union,  union 
of  all  types  of  republicans.  Hail  to  the  men  of  February !  ^ 
The  chief  object  of  this  banquet  was  to  reconcile  the 
socialists,  the  Mountain,  and  the  deputies  of  the  left.  In 
this  respect  it  was  an  utter  failure.  It  only  succeeded  in 
alarming  the  conservatives.  They  interpellated  the  govern- 
ment because  it  gave  permission  to  hold  the  banquet.  In 
the  newspapers  they  denounced  Ledru's  speech  as  incen- 
diary, probably  because  he  blamed  the  lack  of  progressive 
legislation.  This  criticism  is  unfair;  in  fact  Ledru's  pur- 
pose in  the  first  part  of  his  speech  was  to  show  that  socialism 
was  not  necessarily  incendiary.  The  second  part  of  the 
speech,  declaring  that  money  could  be  found,  is  rather 
quixotic  and  laid  itself  open  to  ridicule;  the  periodicals 
naturally  asked  how  the  money  was  to  be  found.  The  D chats 
even  printed  an  article  in  refutation  by  the  prominent  econ- 
omist, Michel  Chevalier.^ 

^  Discours  politiques  2:  104-113. 

'  Debats,  October  10.  The  Constitutionnel,  September  26-27,  declared 
that  Ledru  had  never  before  been  so  violent  and  that  his  type  caused 
class  warfare.  Cf.  Faucher  i :  405-9  and  an  amusing  article  in  the 
Times,  September  26. 


395]  ^^^  COXSTITUTIOX  OF  184S  24I 

In  the  legislature  the  conservatives  continued  their  attacks 
on  Ledru.  On  September  9  a  report  approving  the  expen- 
ditures of  the  provisional  government  had  been  presented 
to  the  Assembly.  Nevertheless  on  October  24  Creton,  the 
inveterate  opponent  of  Ledru-Rollin,  again  brought  up  this 
question.  Garnier-Pages  declared  that  the  financial  dis- 
turbance of  February  was  due  not  to  the  ministry  of  the 
treasury  but  to  the  ministry  of  the  interior.  The  govern- 
ment of  Cavaignac  opposed  further  investigation.  Ledru 
declared  that  although  one  committee  had  already  investi- 
gated the  accounts,  he  would  welcome  one,  two,  three  more 
committees  to  prove  his  absolute  integrity.^  An  investiga- 
tion was  ordered." 

Trouble  was  still  feared  from  Louis  Napoleon.  On 
October  26  Antony  Thouret,  member  of  the  left,  proposed 
to  banish  him.  The  Prince  had  at  last  taken  his  seat  in  the 
legislature  after  a  second  election,  and  he  rose  to  speak  in 
his  own  defense.  "  The  oratorical  failure  was  complete," 
says  Emile  Ollivier,  the  last  prime  minister  appointed  by 
Napoleon  III,  "  It  was  l)elievcd  that  nothing  need  l)e  feared 
from  a  man  who  spoke  so  poorly.  I  heard  Ix^dru-Rollin 
remark  as  he  left  the  room:  What  an  idiot!  He  is  mined. 
Anthony  Thouret  withdrew  his  resolution  in  contemptuous 
terms."  ^ 

In  one  province  at  least,  attempts  were  made  to  revive 
the  credit  of  Ledru-Rollin.  He  had  been  defeated  in  the 
election  to  the  Constituent  Assembly  in  his  old  constituency 
of  Le  Mans.  Trouvc-Chauvel  had  exerted  his  powerful  in- 
fluence against  him,  and  the  conservatives  had  s|)re.'i(l  lies 
and  calumnies,  picturing  him  as  desiring  wholesale  pillage 

'  Afonitcur  2969. 

*  This  resulted  in  the  Ducos  report. 

'  Ollivier  2:  loi. 


242   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [396 

and  a  new  reign  of  terror.  Ledru's  friends  in  the  depart- 
ment of  the  Sarthe  determined  to  avenge  his  defeat  by  hav- 
ing him  elected  to  the  departmental  council.  A  doctor  who 
had  expected  to  be  counsellor  for  La  Fresnaye  gladly  retired 
in  favor  of  the  leader  of  the  Mountain.  The  two  prime 
movers  in  the  enterprise  requested  Ledru's  consent  and  they 
received  the  answer :  "  My  confidence  in  you  is  such  that  I 
cannot  refuse  you."  The  reaction  had  been  delighted  be- 
cause no  republican  candidate  had  come  forward  at  La  Fres- 
naye, but  great  was  their  consternation  when  one  week  be- 
fore the  election  the  name  of  the  popular  radical  was  pro- 
posed. Legitimists,  Bonapartists,  Orleanists,  and  the  offi- 
cials of  the  prefecture  took  part  in  the  campaign  against 
Ledru-Rollin.  Disgraceful  calumnies  were  spread;  noth- 
ing was  neglected  to  insure  the  success  of  the  Orleanist  and 
clerical  candidates.  A  sub-prefect  even  threatened  to  arrest 
one  of  the  radical  campaign  managers.  The  vote  took 
place  on  October  29  and  Ledru  received  610  votes  whereas 
his  opponents  had  only  542  and  163.  Ledru  immediately 
wrote  his  managers  a  letter  of  thanks: 

It  as  a  particularly  sweet  consolation  to  me  after  all  the  cal- 
umnies from  which  I  have  suffered  to  find  a  new  bond  con- 
necting me  with  that  department  whose  ideas  and  principles 
I  represented  for  eight  years.  .  .  .  Give  my  thanks  to  all 
those  fine  rural  electors.  .  .  .  My  name  pronounced  with 
sympathy  by  all  these  simple  and  good  men  is  a  precious  re- 
compense for  my  small  services  to  the  republic  of  February. 

Ledru  was  never  able  to  take  his  place  at  the  meetings  of 
the  general  council  of  the  Sarthe.^ 

1  Guyon  2:119-126;  reprinted  in  Revolution  de  1848,  2:257-265. 


CHAPTER  XVII 
A  Presidential  Candidate 

The  Assembly  had  decided  that  the  election  of  the  pre- 
sident of  the  republic  should  take  place  on  December  lo,  and 
all  parties  girded  themselves  for  the  struggle.  The  conser- 
vatives did  not  dare  to  put  forward  a  candidate  of  their  own. 
Changarnier  insisted  on  running,  but  no  one  paid  any  at- 
tention to  him.  Attempts  were  made  to  start  candidacies 
for  Thiers  and  Bugeaud,  but  they  came  to  naught.  The 
reactionary  centre,  the  club  of  the  Rue  de  Poitiers,  deter- 
mined to  support  Louis  Napoleon  Bonaparte,  for  that  wily 
intriguer  had  presented  himself  with  a  program  that  might 
mean  anything  and  that  might  satisfy  anybody.  Beside 
the  Bonapartists  and  the  conservatives,  numerous  sincere  re- 
publicans such  as  Cremieux  supported  the  prince.  The 
other  nominees  were  all  old-line  republicans.  The  most 
prominent  was  the  head  of  the  existing  government,  (a-ncrai 
Eugene  Cavaignac,  candidate  of  the  moderates  and  of  the 
National.  Cavaignac,  however,  by  his  ruthlessness  in  June 
and  by  his  alliance  with  the  conservatives  of  the  Dufaurc 
group,  had  alienated  the  entire  radical  party,  l-nmartinc 
had  been  in  May  the  almr)St  universal  choice  for  the  olTicc 
of  chief  magistrate,  but  by  the  end  of  June  he  was  no  longer 
considered  for  president,  and  in  December  no  one  except 
himself  believed  that  he  could  attract  many  votes. 

It  had  long  been  known  that  the  canrlidatc  of  the  Moun- 
tain would  Ix?  Ixdru-RolHn.  lie  might  have  had  a  chance 
of  election  if  the  socialists  and  extreme  republicans  had 
3971  243 


244   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [398 

supported  him.  In  October  an  attempt  at  bringing  together 
the  various  elements  had  been  made.  A  banquet  of  sociahst 
deputies  was  to  take  place  at  the  Barriere  Poissoniere. 
Proudhon  declined  the  chairmanship  and  proposed  that  it 
be  offered  to  Ledru-Rollin,  for  he  hoped  thus  to  draw  the 
extreme  left  of  the  Assembly  into  the  field  of  socialism. 
But  the  organizers  of  the  banquet  were  opposed  to  the  name 
of  Ledru-Rollin.  Thereupon  Proudhon  put  forward  Lam- 
ennais,  president  of  the  INlountain,  and  this  choice  was  ac- 
cepted. However,  when  Proudhon  refused  to  join  the  ex- 
treme left  in  its  attack  on  Dufaure,  Mathieu  de  la  Drome 
and  five  fellow-Montagnards  signified  their  intention  of 
being  absent  from  the  banquet  if  Proudhon  should  attend. 
Of  course  the  organizers  refused  to  expel  the  socialist,  and 
so  when  the  banquet  took  place  on  October  17,  the  chairman 
of  the  banquet  and  the  other  members  of  the  ^Mountain  were 
absent.  Two  thousand  guests  assembled,  but  among  them 
only  three  deputies,  Proudhon,  his  follower  Greppo,  and 
Pierre  Leroux.^  On  October  22  another  socialist  banquet  was 
held,  this  time  at  the  Barriere  du  Trone.  The  entire  ]\Ioun- 
tain  was  again  invited,  but  only  six  Montagnards  accepted.' 
The  socialists  desired  to  leave  the  choice  of  a  presidential 
candidate  to  a  joint  committee  of  socialists  and  radicals,  all 
to  abide  by  the  decision  of  the  committee.  Ledru-Rollin, 
who  had  promised  the  Mountain  that  he  would  run,  would 
not  agree  to  retire  if  he  were  not  nominated  by  the  joint  com- 
mittee. Accordingly  the  socialists  put  forward  Raspail,  one 
of  the  leaders  of  the  extreme  revolutionists  now  a  prisoner 
at  Vincennes.     He  was  to  run  merely  as  a  protest ;  the  bal- 


iDarimon  82-3;    Mulberger,   Proudhon    123-5;   Debats,   October    18, 


n 


2  Debats,  October  23,  25.  It  had  been  announced  that  Ledru,  Laurent, 
and  Considerant  were  on  the  directing  committee.  Ledru  and  Laurent 
denied  this  in  letters  to  the  Republiquc. 


399]  ^  PRESIDENTIAL  CANDIDATE  j^3 

lots  cast  for  him  should  show  France  the  strength  of  the 
extreme  revolutionists/     Alton-Shee  issued  an  electoral  cir- 
cular declaring :  "  Raspail  is  the  candidate  proposed  by  the 
central   council   of   the   democratic-socialist   electors   of   all 
France.  ...  In  voting  for  a  president  all  true  socialists 
want  to  destroy  the  presidency.     For  this  work  we  want  a 
revolutionist  who  has  no  illusions,  one  who  does  not  com- 
promise;   but    Ledru-Rollin    is    not    such    a  revolutionist. 
Hurrah    for    the    democratic    and    social    republic!""     In 
general  the  socialists  were  very  fair  to  Ledru,  declaring  their 
admiration  for  him.  but  asserting  that  they  preferred  to  re- 
gister their  own  strength  by  voting  for  a  socialist."'     There 
were  a  few  individuals  who  were  very  violent  against  Ledru ; 
one  extremist  called  him  a  traitor,  who  had  betrayed  the 
people  on  Alarch  17  and  on  April  16,  who  had  betrayed  the 
Belgians  at  Risquons-tout,  who  had  forged  the  Taschercau 
document  against  Blanqui,  and  who  had  bribed  the  Club  dcs 
Clubs.''     In  one  case  the  partisans  oi   Ledru  and    Raspail 
came  to  blows.     On  November  26  in  the  lobby  of  the  Palais 
Bourbon,  Proudhon  and  Felix  Pyat  had  an  altercation  wiiich 
ended  in  an  exchange  of  fisticuffs.     A   duel   resulted.     .'\ 
little  later  Proudhon  refused  to  fight  another  duel,  this  time 
with  Delescluze."' 

Some  extreme  revolutionists  had  great  difficulty  in  <livid- 
ing  which  candidate  to  supi)ort,  Raspail  or  Ixdru.  'Ihc  Di'- 
mncratie  paci/iqiic  of  Considcrant  did  not  declare  for  ixdni- 

^  Dcbats,  November  14,  1848;  Pcuple,  November  18. 

^Monitcur  for  iS.p,  p.  .3547.  Tlic  Rrfonur  of  November  Ji.  1H48, 
attacked  Alton-Sbcc  in  consequence  of  this  poster,  but  on  Novcmlirr  23 
it  asserted  that  tliis  socialist  had  had  a  friendly  interview  with  Ix-rlru. 

3  See  Pcuple,  passim;  Pcuplc  Souverain  of  Lyons,  November  18,  1848. 

■•  Election  brf)adsidc  called  The  Treasons  of  Lcilru-Rolliu,  in  tlir  col- 
lection at  Columbia  University  Library. 

*  Mulbcrgcr:  Proudhon  125;  Castcllanc  4:  115. 


246   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [400 

Rollin  until  November  26.  The  RcpubUqiie  could  never 
make  up  its  mind  and  finally  urged  its  readers  to  vote  for 
either  one  as  a  protest  against  the  existence  of  a  presidency. 
Barbes's  old  Club  of  the  Revolution  had  transformed  itself 
into  an  electoral  assembly,  and  there  the  debate  waxed  hot- 
test between  the  partisans  of  the  two  nominees.  The  first 
meeting  of  this  electoral  assembly  was  held  on  November  1 7. 
Mathieu  de  la  Drome,  Martin  Bernard,  and  two  other 
Montagnards  supported  Ledru-Rollin,  but  no  decision  was 
reached.^  On  the  twenty-first  the  main  discussion  took  place. 
Mathieu  declared  that  Ledru  had  always  adhered  to  socialis- 
tic doctrines  and  in  order  to  prove  this  read  Ledru's  de- 
claration in  1 841  to  the  electors  of  Le  Mans.  Those  pre- 
sent were  not  impressed.  Mathieu  continued,  praising 
Barbes  and  Raspail.  He  dilated  on  the  inconvenience  of 
telling  the  provinces  to  vote  for  Raspail  because  they  had 
already  been  instructed  to  vote  for  Ledru-Rollin.  He  dwelt 
on  the  necessity  of  defeating  Cavaignac  and  Louis  Napoleon, 
asserting  that  if  either  of  them  were  elected,  the  only  hope 
for  France  lay  in  the  people  of  Paris.  Madier  de  Montjau 
Jr.,  who  became  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  extreme  left  under 
the  third  republic,  opposed  Mathieu.  He  declared  that 
Ledru  was  not  a  true  revolutionist,  for  Ledru  had  not  sup- 
ported Louis  Blanc  and  Albert  on  March  17  when  they 
might  have  overthrown  the  moderates ;  he  maintained  that  a 
revolution  must  always  advance.'  It  was  clear  that  the 
meeting  was  opposed  to  Ledru,  but  the  Montagnards  con- 
tinued their  defense  on  November  28  and  on  December  5. 
On  the  latter  day  Herve,  a  friend  of  George  Sand,  made  an 
effective  speech  in  which  he  denounced  Ledru  for  his  actions 
on  April    16  and  criticized  the  Mountain  for  being  non- 

^  Revolution  democratique  et  sociale,  November  19,  184S. 

^Patrie,  November  22,   1848;  Debats,  November  23;   Titiies,  Novem- 
ber 25. 


40l]  A  PRESIDEXTIAL  CAXDIDATE  047 

socialistic.  He  was  answered  by  ^Mathieu  and  two  other 
^Montagnards.  The  following  day  the  electoral  assembly 
decided  in  favor  of  Raspail.^ 

The  Penple  of  Proudhon  attempted  to  make  Ledru  retire 
from  the  contest,  and  radicals  tried  to  make  Raspail  with- 
draw, but  neither  was  successful.  There  were  rumors  that 
Ledru  would  retire  in  favor  of  the  other  candidates.  Of 
course  his  former  connection  with  I^martine  caused  the 
statement  to  be  bruited  about  that  these  two  men  had  com- 
bined forces."  Some  even  "  surmised  the  intention  of  the 
red  party  to  vote  for  Prince  Louis  Napoleon."  ^  There 
were  many  democrats  who  wished  both  Lamartine  and 
Ledru-Rollin  to  retire  in  favor  of  the  one  man  who  had 
any  real  chance  of  defeating  the  Bonapartist  pretender, 
namely  General  Cavaignac.*  and  there  were  rumors  that 
Ledru  would  thus  step  aside. '^  All  ideas  of  a  compact  be- 
tween Cavaignac  and  Ledru  were  dispelled  l)y  the  open 
break  of  November  25. 

On  Tuesday,  November  21,  in  the  Constituent  Assembly 
Cavaignac  asked  Garnier-Pages,  Pagnerre,  Duclerc.  and 
Barthelemy-St.  Hilaire  °  whether  they  had  circulated  accusa- 
tions against  him  in  connection  with  tbe  June  Days.  There 
was  a  discussion  as  to  when  the  debate  on  these  accusations 
should  take  place.  Garnier-Pages  and  his  friends  wished 
to  await  the  arrival  of  lamartine,  who  was  absent.  Ix-dru 
expressed  his  delight  that  at  last  the  truth  about  the  June 
Days   should   be   known,   but   he   desired   the   presence  of 

'  Wasscrmann  225-7. 

*  Times,  December  12,  184/?. 

^  Ibid.,  November  28;  cf.  Guyon  2:  i,34- 

*  Atelier,  November,  p.  342. 

*  Langue  du  Vipdre,  November. 

'  Tlicsc   four   men   were    the   chief   mcml>crs   of   a    small   group   lli.it 
vacillated  between  the  left  and  the  governmental  left  center. 


j^S   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [402 

Lamartine  and  Marie,  as  their  evidence  was  necessary  on 
certain  matters  and  as  the  subject  should  be  threshed  out 
once  for  all.'  Cavaignac  pleaded  for  an  immediate  debate, 
saying  that  if  he  was  willing  to  proceed  in  the  absence  of 
Marie,  the  opposition  might  forego  the  presence  of  Lamar- 
tine. The  Assembly  fixed  on  the  following  Saturday  for 
the  debate. 

The  next  day  Jules  Favre  was  talking  with  Ledru  as  to 
interpellations  of  the  government  on  using  pressure  in  the 
elections.-  Favre  made  his  attack  two  days  later,  and  a 
bitter  attack  it  was.  There  was  much  hilarity  in  which 
Ledru  joined  when  the  orator  asserted  that  he  had  always 
been  a  friend  of  Ledru-Rollin,  for  all  remembered  Favre's 
assaults  on  the  executive  commission.  Jules  Favre  com- 
pared the  use  of  influence  by  Cavaignac  and  Dufaure  with 
his  own  conduct  and  that  of  his  superior,  the  minister  of 
the  interior,  in  refraining  from  such  use  in  the  elections  of 
the  previous  April. 

On  November  25  Cavaignac  took  the  floor  and  declared 
that  he  did  not  desire  a  contest  wuth  the  members  of  the 
executive  commission,  but  merely  information  as  to  an  at- 
tack on  himself.  Barthelemy-St.  Hilaire,  professor  at  the 
Sorbonne,  thereupon  declared  that  it  was  time  that  the  truth 
about  the  June  Days  were  known;  up  to  now  he  and  his 
friends  had  kept  silent  for  patriotic  reasons.  He  then  read 
a  fragment  of  history  written  by  himself  and  his  three  col- 
leagues whom  Cavaignac  had  mentioned  on  November  21. 
This  historical  sketch  gave  a  clear  account  of  the  actions  of 
the  executive  commission  during  the  June  Days  and  for 
the  first  time  revealed  to  the  public  that  it  was  Cavaignac 
who  had  caused  the  delay  in  attacking  the  insurgents.     At 

^  Moniteur  3297. 

^  Patrie,  November  22,  1848. 


^03]  ^  PRESIDENTIAL  C  AX  DID  ATE  249 

times  St.  Hilaire  even  hinted  that  the  general  had  plotted 
to  overthrow  the  executive  commission.  The  Assembly 
was  hostile  and  the  dull  academic  manner  of  the  orator  did 
not  impress  it.  Cavaignac  made  a  brilliant  defense,  singling 
out  a  few  specific  accusations  and  refuting  them;  he  did  not, 
however,  attempt  to  disprove  the  general  account.  Bixio, 
a  member  of  the  left  centre,  objected  to  the  insinuation  that 
Cavaignac  had  incited  the  insurrection  in  order  to  repress 
it.  St.  Hilaire  denied  that  he  had  implied  this,  and  he  re- 
newed his  attack  on  Cavaignac  on  certain  military  points. 
The  general  replied,  explaining  his  tactics.  Then  Garnier- 
Pages  spoke,  charging  Cavaignac  not  with  betraying  France 
but  with  committing  great  faults.  He  accused  the  General 
of  ingratitude,  for  Cavaignac  had  let  the  Assembly  blame 
the  executive  commission  for  the  lack  of  troops  and  had  not 
come  forward  to  tell  the  truth  and  exonerate  it.  Garnier- 
Pages  added  a  few  words  in  appreciation  of  the  activity  of 
Ledru-Rollin  during  the  June  Days.  Cavaignac  again  took 
the  floor.  He  evaded  the  main  charges,  said  nothing  as  to 
his  silence  as  to  who  was  responsible  for  the  delay  in  at- 
tacking the  barricades,  but  contented  himself  with  denying 
that  he  sought  the  dictatorship  and  with  stating  that  he  had 
not  known  the  true  opinions  of  the  executive  commission 
when  he  accepted  a  ministry  from  it. 

Gamier-Pages  had  summoned  his  four  colleagues  of  the 
executive  commission  to  corroborate  his  stati-nu-nts,  but 
only  Ledru-Rollin  responded  to  this  appeal.  lie-  had  no 
desire,  said  Ledru-Rollin,  to  make  accusations;  he  only 
wi.shed  to  defend  himself  against  unjust  calumnies,  lie 
then  entered  into  an  account  of  the  military  disjKxsitions  in 
June,  combated  the  system  of  concentration,  denied  that 
Cavaignac  had  carried  out  even  that  system  adcfjualcly. 
He  declared  that  his  sole  desire  was  to  undeceive  the  prople 
and  the  National  Guard.    He  wished  to  sliow  the  people  that 


250  LEDRU-ROLLIK  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [404 

the  executive  commission's  plan  was  to  prevent  the  upris- 
ing instead  of  repressing  it ;  he  wished  to  show  the  National 
Guard  that  he  had  not  acted  as  a  coward  or  a  traitor  on  June 
23.  Ledru  closed  by  saying  that  on  all  sides  there  had  been 
misunderstandings,  that  the  people  in  particular  had  been 
led  astray  by  monarchical  conspirators,  and  that  therefore 
they  should  be  pardoned;  an  amnesty  should  be  proclaimed/ 
Ledru-Rollin  was  not  favorably  regarded  by  the  deputies, 
but  he  made  a  stronger  impression  than  the  other  opponents 
of  Cavaignac.  His  accusations  were  not  extravagant  and 
his  arguments  were  telling.  "  All  together  he  disturbed 
Cavaignac,"  said  Victor  Hugo,  at  that  time  still  a  con- 
servative." i 
After  General  Bedeau  had  defended  the  plan  of  concen- 
tration and  its  execution,  Cavaignac  spoke  for  a  fourth  time. 
He  claimed  that  he  had  concentrated  his  troops,  but  that  he 
had  not  had  time  to  tell  the  executive  commission  what  he  had 
done.  He  added :  "  Ledru-Rollin  claims  that  he  broke  with 
me;  I  do  not  know  which  of  us  broke  with  the  other,  but  I 
hope  the  break  will  continue  forever."  Thereupon  the  right 
and  centre  applauded  frantically.     Dupont  de  I'Eure  pro- 

'^  Discours  poUtiqiies  2:  131-7.    For  extracts,  see  chapter  xiv. 

-  Hugo  1 :  396.  Hugo  adds :  "  Ledru-Rollin,  a  sort  of  bastard  Dan- 
ton,  leaning  with  his  great  buttoned  chest  against  the  tribune,  had  the 
hoarse  voice  of  a  Petion  and  the  rocking  of  the  shoulders  of  a  Mirabeau 
without  the  latter's  eloquence  .  .  .  Avithal  a  certain  lawyer's  tact  mixed 
with  the  violence  of  a  demagogue.  .  .  .  When  Ledru-Rollin  returned  to 
his  seat  beside  Pierre  Leroux  and  Lamennais,  a  man  with  long  hair 
turning  grey  and  a  white  vest,  walked  across  the  chamber  and  shook 
Ledru- Rollin's  hand.  It  was  Lagrange,"  the  eternal  advocate  of  am- 
nesty. About  this  time,  Thiers  remarked  to  Falloux  and  Mole :  "  One 
may  differ  from  the  political  views  of  'M.  Ledru-Rollin,  but  if  one 
wishes  to  be  just  it  is  impossible  to  deny  him  great  ability  and  a  thor- 
ough appreciation  of  the  situation.  You  will  see  how  he  will  embarrass 
ministers  who  are  not  of  his  stature." — Peuplc,  December  3.  quoting 
Republicain  de  Lot  et  Garonne. 


^^05]  ^  PRESIDENTIAL  CANDIDATE  25 1 

posed  an  order  of  the  day,  saying  that  Cavaignac  had  de- 
served well  of  the  republic.  This  was  passed  by  503  votes 
to  34.  Even  Flocon  and  David  d' Angers  joined  the  major- 
ity. Most  of  the  left  and  almost  all  the  Mountain  refrained 
from  voting. 

This  day  was  a  glorious  parliamentary  success  for 
Cavaignac;  the  general  had  outdebated  the  politicians;  the 
dictator  had  received  a  magnificent  vote  of  confidence.  But 
he  had  ruined  his  chances  of  election  to  the  presidency.  He 
had  only  half  gained  the  conservatives  of  the  Rue  de 
Poitiers  and  he  had  utterly  lost  the  radicals  of  the  Rue  de 
Taitbout.  In  other  words  he  had  permanently  split  the 
party  of  the  old  republicans.  The  Mountain  was  cast  out 
by  the  National  moderates  and  the  only  path  left  for  the 
Montagnards  was  violent  opposition,  and  union  with  the 
socialists.  After  this  rupture  there  was  no  chance  that  the 
radicals  would  vote  for  Cavaignac  as  against  Louis  Napo- 
leon; by  them  Cavaignac  was  held  as  the  worse  of  two 
evils.  In  the  eyes  of  history  too  he  had  ruined  himself,  for 
Garnier-Pages  had  shown  his  failure  to  give  the  executive 
commission  its  due,  and  Ledru-Rollin  had  shown  his  in- 
capacity. Lord  Normanby  judged  correctly  when  he  .said : 
"  Upon  the  whole,  in  spite  of  General  Cavaignac's  un- 
doubted parliamentary  triumph,  I  am  inclined  to  think  that 
the  permanent  effect  of  this  discussion  will  be  rather  to 
diminish  the  amount  of  merit  posterity  will  accord  him  for 
the  events  of  June."  ' 

Meanwhile  the  friends  f)f  Lcdru-i'JolJin  were  working 
hard  for  his  election  as  president.  They  wrote  to  their 
departments  urging  his  candidacy.-     C)f  course  many  news- 

J  Normanby  2:320-4.  ICvcn  tlic  linsfi!,-  Ch.nmicr  2:^42  wa.*  im- 
pressed by  the  arguments  of  Lcdrii. 

'For  letters  of  I^-imcnnais.  sec  L;inunii.iis  j.  ^.i-.s.  For  electoral  de- 
tails as  to  the  North,  sec  Gosscz  328-330;  as  to  the  Sarthc,  sec  Guyon 

2:  I3.V4- 


2  -2   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [406 

papers  exerted  their  influence  in  favor  of  Ledru-Rollin.  In 
the  departments  they  were  most  numerous  in  the  Loire 
valley  and  in  south-west  France/  ,In  Paris  the  most  promi- 
nent were  the  Rcforme,  now  edited  by  Ribeyrolles,  the 
Rcz'olution  democratiqiie  et  sociale  of  Delescluze,  semi- 
official organ  of  the  Mountain,  the  Democratie  pacifique  of 
Considerant,  who  though  a  socialist  allied  himself  closely 
with  the  ]\Iontagnards,  the  Pciiplc  constitiiant  of  Lamennais, 
the  Travail  of  the  Alontagnard  Baune,  and  the  Montague 
of  Gaily,  devoted  admirer  of  Ledru-Rollin. 

Under  the  inspiration  of  Delescluze  a  campaign  organiza- 
tion called  the  Solidarite  repiiblicaine  had  been  founded  and, 
as  the  law  required,  registered  on  November  4.  In  the  pre- 
amble to  its  constitution  it  declared  that  in  times  of  danger 
all  republicans  should  unite,  that  the  purpose  of  the  society 
was  "  to  assure  by  all  legal  means  the  pacific  and  regular 
development  of  social  reforms,  development  which  should 
be  the  goal  and  consequence  of  democratic  institutions." 
At  the  trial  of  Ledru-Rollin  and  his  colleagues  in  1849,  the 
prosecution  claimed  that  this  society  had  been  started  with 
the  purpose  of  preparing  armed  resistance  to  the  govern- 
ment, but  no  evidence  was  produced  to  support  this  state- 
ment. The  Solidarite  repiiblicaine  was  clearly  established 
as  a  piece  of  electoral  machinery  and  maintained  as  the 
party  organization  of  the  Mountain.  It  had  a  central  office 
at  50  Rue  Faubourg  St.  Honore,  Paris,  and  branches 
throughout  the  departments.  The  original  members  were 
all  well-known  radicals,  and  new^  members  could  only  be 
introduced  by  two  associates.  The  president  was  ]Martin 
Bernard,  one  of  the  chief  leaders  of  the  secret  societies 
under  the  July  Monarchy;  the  treasurer  was  Deville,  a 
prominent  Montagnard;  the  secretary  was  Delescluze.  The 
executive  committee  was  composed  of  sixty-four  republic- 

^  Revolution  democratique  ct  sociale,  Rcforme,  passim. 


407] 


A  PRESIDEXTIAL  C  AX  DID  ATE 


ans,  over  half  of  whom  were  deputies  of  the  Mountain,  such 
as  Ledru-RolHn,  Lamennais,  Mathieu,  and  Fehx  Pyat.  Its 
duties  were  to  encourage  the  founding  of  newspapers,  to 
enhghten  the  voters,  to  distribute  pamphlets,  and  to  find 
positions  for  workingmen.^  All  the  members  of  the  execu- 
tive committee  except  Martin  Nadaud  '  had  voted  to  sup- 
port Ledru,  and  Nadaud  had  been  begged  not  to  retire  on 
that  account.  Nevertheless  Nadaud  publicly  declared  his 
dissent,  and  the  Revolution  dcmocratiqiie  ct  social c  had  to 
explain  Nadaud's  isolation  in  the  Solidarite  rcpublicainc.^ 

In  this  campaign  much  use  was  made  of  political  posters. 
The  Mountain  issued  three.  On  October  ly  it  declared 
that  the  republic  had  retrograded  far  from  the  glorious 
period  of  February,  but  that  the  people  ought  to  remain 
calm,  for  the  deputies  of  the  left  would  successfully  defend 
it.*  Early  in  November  the  executive  committee  of  the  clul) 
in  the  Rue  de  Taitbout  issued  the  widely-discussed  manifesto 
of  the  Mountain.  The  Montagnards,  said  the  manifesto, 
had  voted  against  the  existence  of  a  presidency,  but  they  ac- 
cepted the  verdict  of  the  legislative  majority  and  they  pro- 
posed a  candidate  who  would  work  for  the  realization  of 
their  principles.  To  guide  the  republic  the  people  must 
have  not  a  mere  name  nor  a  man  who  had  given  pledges  to 
the  reaction,"  but  a  true  republican.     The  Mountain  there- 

1  These  details  come  from  Ledru's  trial  in  1&49,  Monitrur  y^.  One 
of  the  newspapers  founded  by  the  society  was  the  Revolution  d^mo- 
cratique  et  socialc.  For  lists  of  members,  sec  Rcfnrmc,  Novi-mbcr  7; 
Revolution  dcmocratique  et  sociale,  December  7;  Lucas  24p.  For 
letter  showing  intimacy  of  Dclcscluze  and  Lcdru,  sec  appendix. 

*  Nadaud  !x:came  one  of  leaders  of  the  Mountain  after  Ledru's  fliRht 
in  1849. 

*  Revolution  dcmocratique  et  sociale.  December  4. 

*  RCforme,  Debats,  October  19.  Sisrncd  by  Lcdru  and  42  other  Mon- 
tap:nards. 

*  Louis  Napoleon  and  Cavaignac  were  here  indicated. 


254   LEDRU-ROLLIX  AXD  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [408 

fore  proposed  Ledru-Rollin,  the  organizer  of  universal  suf- 
rage,  who  had  always  stood  for  truly  republican  principles 
even  if  he  had  failed  to  obtain  the  application  of  his  ideas 
by  the  governments  of  which  he  was  a  member/  In  a 
third  poster  the  executive  committee  gave  the  program  of 
the  extreme  left :  unit}-  of  power ;  reform  of  the  administra- 
tion, the  legal  system,  the  army,  and  the  finances ;  free  edu- 
cation; liberty  of  public  meeting  and  association;  repur- 
chase by  the  state  of  railroads,  canals,  mines,  etc. ;  the  right 
of  labor ;  "  government  of  all  and  for  all ;  the  republic,  one 
and  indivisible,  democratic  and  social."  As  Ledru-Rollin 
had  supported  all  these  ideas,  the  Mountain  believed  that  he 
should  be  elected  president.^  The  conserv^ative  newspapers 
found  these  posters  surprisingly  restrained  in  tone,  but  they 
objected  to  the  demand  for  the  right  to  labor.^ 

These  were  not  the  only  posters  in  support  of  Ledru- 
Rollin.  In  December  the  democratic-socialist  committee, 
a  variant  of  the  Solidarite  republicaine,  told  how  the  national 
electoral  congress  of  workingmen  and  soldiers  of  Paris  had 
cast  all  their  votes  except  three  for  Ledru-Rollin ;  the  poster 
emphasized  the  need  for  unity  among  republicans  and  as- 
serted that  Ledru  had  always  fought  for  the  welfare  of  the 

^Rejorme,  November  9,  10;  Revolution  democratique  et  sociale,  No- 
vember II.  Approved  by  the  seven  members  of  the  executive  com- 
mittee, Theodore  Bac,  Martin  Bernard,  Buvignier,  Deville,  Lamennais, 
Mathieu,  and  Felix  Pyat,  and  by  49  other  deputies  including  Ledru. 

^AMches  rouges  310-2.  On  December  15,  after  the  election.  Ledru- 
Rollin  and  sixty  of  his  colleagues  issued  a  statement,  reasserting  their 
hostility  to  the  institution  of  a  presidency,  their  confidence  in  the  people, 
and  their  devotion  to  the  republic— i?^/or?;ie,  Rez'olutiort  democratique 
et  sociale,  December  15,  1848;  Debats,  December  16. 

*  Assemhlee  Nationale,  Debats,  Evenement,  Steele,  Univcrs,  November 
II,  1848.  The  Evenement  claims  that  the  posters  were  partly  composed 
by  Ledru  himself. 


409]  ^  PRESIDENTIAL  CANDIDATE  255 

people.^  A  group  of  tailors,  plumbers,  and  so  forth  issued 
a  poster  comparing  the  people  who  supported  Louis  Napoleon 
with  those  who  supported  Ledru.  Some  other  persons  con- 
trasted the  services  of  the  three  leading  candidates,  summing 
up  thus;  "Cavaignac:  all  for  power.  Louis  Napoleon: 
extension  of  power.  Ledru-Rollin :  all  for  the  people  and 
by  the  people.  Compare,  judge,  and  vote."  A  combina- 
tion of  professors,  sculptors,  and  artisans  supported  Ledru 
as  the  champion  of  the  republic,  labor,  liberty,  and  equality. 
The  day  before  the  election  twenty-three  workingmen  issued 
a  supreme  appeal  for  the  union  of  all  republicans  on  the 
name  of  Ledru-Rollin. - 

Of  course  numerous  public  meetings  were  held  both  in 
Paris  and  in  the  provinces  during  the  progress  of  the  cam- 
paign. Various  Montagnards  made  speeches  for  their  can- 
didate in  the  capital  or  in  their  own  departments.  Ledru 
himself  addressed  only  one  public  gathering.  On  Nov- 
ember 20  he  made  a  speech  in  Paris  devoting  himself  to  re- 
futing the  charges  which  had  been  made  against  him. 
Electoral  banquets  were  also  frequent  in  the  campaign.  In 
the  provinces  many  were  held  in  Ledru's  honor."'  In  Paris 
banquets  were  held  every  day,  but  T^dru  attended  only 
three  of  them.* 

^  Reforme,  Revolution  dcmocratiquc  ct  socialc,  December  4;  Drhats, 
December  5. 

2  All  these  posters  may  be  found  in  AfTichcs  rouges  305-.116.  Sec  also 
Democratic  pacifique,  Reforme.  R&volution  dSmocraiique  cl  sncialr. 
passim. 

'  Democratic  pacifiquc,  Reforme,  Rh-olulion  dcmocratiquc  et  soci>ilc, 
passim.  For  letters  of  repret  to  banf|iieters  at  Lyotis  .ind  Marseilles, 
see  Resolution  dcmocratiquc  ct  socialc.  December  .1.  5. 

*  Ledru  had  accepted  the  chairmanship  of  a  fourtli.  calle<l  llir  Manqiiet 
of  the  Federation  of  the  People.  Due.  however,  to  the  micertainty  of 
the  date  when  it  was  to  be  held,  he  had  to  withdraw  hii  acceptance. 
When  the  dinner  took  place  on  Xoveml)cr  8,  there  was  some  sli^fht 
disturbance  owinj?  to  his  absence. — RSforme,  November  4,  10;  Consti- 
tutionticl,  November  9. 


256   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [410 

The  first  of  these  three  banquets  was  given  by  the  press 
and  was  held  on  November  19  at  the  Chateau  Rouge  under 
the  presidency  of  Lamennais.  Ahhough  the  dinner  was 
scheduled  for  three-thirty,  by  two  o'clock  the  banquet 
hall  was  crowded.  Two,  or  according  to  another  estimate, 
four  thousand  guests  were  present,  including  many  mem- 
bers of  the  Mountain,  At  five  o'clock  the  speeches  began. 
Toasts  were  proposed  by  various  newspaper  men  and  de- 
puties; revolutionary  poets  recited  their  own  works;  the 
orchestra  played  patriotic  airs.  When  Ledru  mounted  the 
platform,  the  room  resounded  with  cheers.  He  declared  that 
he  was  sure  that  all  those  present  hoped  for  the  establishment 
in  the  near  future  of  the  democratic  and  social  republic,  that 
union  of  all  French  republicans  was  the  best  means  of  achiev- 
ing this  aim.  He  then  dilated  on  the  failure  of  the  republic 
to  carry  out  its  promise  of  aid  to  the  democrats  in  Spain, 
Italy,  the  Danubian  provinces,  Berlin,  Vienna.  He  paid  a 
fine  tribute  to  the  martyred  Robert  Blum,  the  Viennese 
patriot.^  He  ended  by  saving:  "Let  our  brothers  abroad 
be  reassured,  for  although  provisionally  democracy  is  in 
abeyance,  we  shall  finally  arrive  by  universal  suffrage  at 
understanding  the  desire  of  the  people ;  and  there  will  remain 
but  one  religion,  but  one  feeling :  fraternity.  Long  live  the 
democratic  and  social  republic!"  Of  course  Ledru  was 
wildly  cheered  and  congratulated  by  everybody  present.^ 

^  For  this  he  received  thanks  from  the  citizens  of  Hanau  in  Hesse  and 
Treneu  in  Saxony. — Reforme,  December  9,  26. 

'  Reforme,  November  21 ;  poster  in  collection  at  Columbia  University 
Library.  Chauvelot,  a  prominent  socialist,  who  met  Ledru  at  this  ban- 
quet, declared  a  month  later:  "I  found  Ledru-Rollin  much  excited;  I 
believe  there  is  in  him  much  of  the  woman ;  that  disturbed  me.  I  fear 
that  he  has  not  force  enough  to  bear  the  burden  of  public  aflfairs." — 
Testimony  at  trial  of  Vasbentier  and  Etex  on  December  13,  Moniteur 
3554-  A  similar  impression  was  made  on  Castille  at  a  Banquet  of  Fra- 
ternity, the  date  of  which  cannot  be  located:  "  M.  Ledru-Rollin  played 


41 1  ]  A  PRESIDEXTIAL  C  AX  DID  ATE 


-:>/ 


On  November  24  at  the  Barriere  du  Roule  a  banquet  was 
given  by  the  wine  merchants,  and  the  entire  ^Mountain  was 
invited,  but  only  Ledru  and  six  colleagues  attended.  Ledru 
apologized  for  the  absence  of  the  other  Montagnards,  nec- 
essary "  inasmuch  as  from  today's  session  may  be  obtained 
the  proof  that  when  a  party  attains  power  by  inexplicable 
conduct,  by  means  of  acts  or  influences  that  cannot  be 
avowed,  it  may  have  recourse  to  scandalous  measures  to  re- 
tain this  power."  ^  A  guest  here  interrupted:  "  That  is  not 
true."  For  a  quarter  of  an  hour  vociferations  and  menaces 
were  heard.  The  stewards  of  the  banquet  tried  to  restore 
order  and  finally  succeeded  in  expelling  the  man  who  had 
started  the  disturbance  and  a  friend  who  aided  him  in  con- 
tinuing it.  Then  Ledru,  who  had  been  standing  calmly  on 
the  platform  throughout  this  tumult,  resumed.  He  ex- 
plained that  the  Mountain  was  with  the  wine  merchants  in 
desiring  the  abolition  of  excise  duties  on  meats  and  light 
liquors;  he  entered  into  statistical  details  to  show  the  hard- 
ships entailed  on  the  poor  by  the  imposition  of  the.se  taxes. 
At  this  point  some  one  else  tried  to  cause  a  new  disturbance 
but  was  easily  silenced.  Ledru  asserted  that  it  was  the 
radical  party  alone  that  had  consistently  advocated  the  repeal 
of  the  tax  on  wines,  that  the  provisional  government  had 

on  the  multituflc  like  a  Rrcat  artist.  .  .  .  When  Diiprez  during  his  prime 
appeared  at  the  Opera,  he  produced  an  impression  no  deeper  than  tliat 
produced  by  this  tall,  broad-shouldered  man  of  the  ruddy  countenance. 
.  .  .  This  elaborate  speech  clothed  in  the  finest  lanKUaRC  was  uttered 
and  listened  to  with  a  fervor  difficult  to  dcscriln:.  ...  I  i)crccivcd 
that  each  gesture  with  which  M.  Ledru-Rollin  .ncccntuatcd  his  state- 
ments imparted  to  his  cheeks,  already  ruddy  and  purple  with  Rcncrous 
blood,  a  ircmolo  which  involuntarily  made  me  say:  There  is  an  amiable 
man  who  iviU  not  found  a  republic.  Ix-dru-RolIin  reminded  me  of 
those  great  whig  lords." — Castillc:  Ledru-Rollin  4-7. 

*  This  remark  was  made  the  day  before  the  discussion  lictwccn  Cavain- 
nac  and  the  members  of  the  executive  commission  concerning  the  June 
Days. 


258   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FREXCH  REPUBLIC    [412 

carried  out  this  reform,  whereas  the  conservatives  had  re- 
stored the  tax.  After  two  more  speeches  the  members  of  the 
]\Iountain  retired,  and  the  wine  merchants  turned  to  private 
affairs/ 

The  various  educational  institutions  of  Paris,  always  pro- 
minent in  democratic  movements,  organized  a  banquet  at  the 
Barriere  de  Sevres  and  invited  the  members  of  the  extreme 
left,  many  of  whom  accepted.  From  noon  to  four  o'clock 
on  December  3  two  thousand  guests  listened  to  speeches. 
The  government  sent  a  policeman  to  watch  the  proceedings. 
The  organizers  of  the  banquet  protested  against  the  super- 
vision but  were  willing  to  let  the  police  officer  remain  as  a 
private  citizen.  Ledru  and  a  few  other  deputies  left  the  hall 
in  order  to  visit  the  prefect  of  police  and  to  make  their 
protest  to  him.  In  the  meanwhile  the  speeches  began. 
Several  students  made  fiery  addresses  and  several  poets  re- 
cited socialistic  songs.  Challemel-Lacour,  later  Gambetta's 
assistant  under  the  third  republic,  made  his  maiden  speech; 
lies,  he  declared,  were  the  arms  of  the  royalists,  faith  the 
weapon  of  the  republicans.  At  this  point  Ledru  returned 
to  the  hall;  amid  universal  applause  he  told  of  the  success 
of  his  mission  to  the  prefect  of  police  and  showed  the 
policeman  an  order  to  retire.  Then  Ledru  toasted  the  re- 
public, pleaded  for  union  among  democrats,  proclaimed  that 
the  institution  of  a  president  in  the  constitution  was  merely 
another  form  of  monarchy,  prophesied  the  triumph  of  liberty 
after  the  tribulations  through  which  it  was  passing,  defended 
his  own  Italian  policy,  namely  support  of  the  Italian  people 
against  the  pope  and  the  princes  of  the  minor  states.  "  Let 
us  abolish  the  privileges  of  the  past,"  he  said,  "  and  prepare 

^  Debats,  Xovember  25;  Reforme,  November  26;  Times,  Xovember  27. 
The  conservatives  frequently  cited  the  disturbances  at  this  banquet  to 
prove  the  disorderly  conduct  of  radicals,  but  as  conservative  guests  were 
the  originators  of  the  tumult,  the  Montagnards  can  hardly  be  blamed 
for  it. 


413]  A  PRESIDENTIAL  CANDIDATE  259 

for  the  equality  and  happiness  of  the  future;  let  us  be  re- 
volutionary, and  let  us  not  stop  until  the  revolution  has  made 
the  tour  of  the  world." 

Proudhon  spoke  next.  He  made  a  long  explanation  of 
the  different  schools  of  socialism.  A  few  more  orators  made 
brief  speeches,  and  the  banquet  closed  peacefully.^  Deles- 
cluze  in  his  newspaper  tried  to  make  it  appear  that  this  ban- 
quet was  a  tribute  to  Ledru-Rollin's  candidacy,  but  the 
schools  that  had  organized  the  banquet  denied  this;  it  was 
a  union  of  all  republicans,  they  said,  followers  of  Raspail  as 
well  as  of  Ledru-Rollin.  Delescluze  was  forced  to  publish 
a  similar  statement.' 

During  the  electoral  campaign  rumors  had  spread  that  the 
government  feared  troubles  from  the  reds  and  that  it  be- 
lieved that  the  radical  deputies  were  implicated.  On  De- 
cember 9  Joly,  a  member  of  the  Mountain,  interpellated  the 
cabinet  on  these  rumors  and  asked  whether  the  government 
intended  to  close  the  clubs.  Dufaure,  minister  of  the  in- 
terior, admitted  that  he  had  feared  a  riot ;  he  declared  that 
he  would  ask  for  a  law  against  the  clubs  when  the  need 
for  such  a  law  should  arise;  he  urged  that  all  parties  work 
for  peace. 

'^  Reformc;  Revolution  democratique  cl  socialc,  Dcbats,  Decem- 
ber 4;  Pcuplc,  Reforme,  December  5,  1848;  Fonvielle  in  NouvcUc 
Revue  110:472-487;  Sarccy  47-9.  Sarccy  writes:  "It  was  there  that 
for  the  first  time  I  heard  an  eloquent  man,  Lcdru-RoIlin.  IK-  has  a 
whiff  of  popular  eloquence  that  carries  one  away." 

'  Nouvelle  Rcruc  110:486;  Resolution  di^mocratiiiuc  cl  sihkiu-.  De- 
cember 6,  8;  Pcuplc,  December  7.  A  little  later,  on  Deccmlwr  26,  Deles- 
cluze wrote  to  a  friend :  "  You  are  severe  on  Ixidru ;  I  assure  you  no 
one  leads  a.  busier  life  than  docs  he.  If  he  does  not  reply  to  cvcrythinn, 
do  not  accuse  his  lack  of  knowledRC  or  his  couraRc.  lie  is  perfectly 
capable  of  undcrstantiing  any  situation,  I  am  convinced ;  only  he  is  not 
a  man  given  to  details.  As  to  his  attitude  in  the  .Assembly,  is  he  free? 
In  order  to  be  listened  to,  he  is  obliged  not  to  cheapen  his  utterances, 
but  he  is  as  revolutionary  and  as  devoted  as  anyone." — Quoted  at  I>cdru 
trial,  Monitcur  for  iS.fQ,  p.  3099, 


26o  LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [414 

Ledru  spoke  next.  He  asserted  that  a  law  closing  the 
clubs  would  be  unconstitutional,  for  the  constitution  re- 
cognized the  right  of  public  meeting.  He  protested  against 
Dufaure's  misquotation  of  the  speech  he  had  made  at  the 
Banquet  of  the  Schools.  The  minister  of  the  interior  had 
declared  that  Ledru-Rollin  had  advocated  taking  up  arms  in 
Paris  whereas  Ledru  had  merely  stated  that  it  would  be 
necessary  for  France  to  take  up  arms  if  Austria  invaded  the 
Legations.  The  misrepresentation  resulted,  Ledru  said, 
from  the  reports  of  a  contemptible  police  agent.^  "  I  pro- 
tested no  such  provocative  words  were  ever  uttered  either 
in  the  clubs  or  in  the  electoral  assemblies.  We  have  only 
one  thought,  that  of  union.  ...  As  long  as  the  constitution 
is  not  violated,  no  uprising  whatever  can  turn  to  the  advan- 
tage of  true  friends  of  the  republic."  He  closed  with  a  de- 
claration of  loyalty  to  the  republic.  "  We  are  not  trying 
to  ruin  it  by  dissensions,  for  after  all  it  is  our  work,  not 
years."  "  This  speech  is  a  clear  defense  against  the  calum- 
nies spread  abroad;  its  importance  consists  in  Ledru's  de- 
claration that  only  a  violation  of  the  constitution  would 
justify  an  uprising. 

On  December  10  and  11  the  presidential  election  was  held. 
Most  people  foresaw  that  Louis  Napoleon  would  win,  but 
few  expected  the  overwhelming  triumph  he  received.  The 
votes  stood :  ^ 

^  This  accusation  of  a  police  agent  caused  much  talk.  Two  days  later 
Ledru  publicly  told  the  Assembly  that  he  did  not  mean  the  prefect  of 
police,  Gervais  de  Caen. — Moniteur  3540.  Everj^body  was  now  sure  that 
he  meant  Carlier.  Carlier  himself  thought  so  too  and  wrote  a  public 
letter  in  which  he  denied  the  accusations  and  accused  Ledru-Rollin  of 
being  double-faced.— D^'ftof.?,  December  13.  Ledru  took  no  notice  of  the 
letter. 

^Moniteur  3522. 

'^  Moniteur  for  184S,  p.  3640.  Other  accounts  give  sHghtlv  different 
figures. 


415]                     A  PRESIDENTIAL  CANDIDATE                       261 

France 

Bonaparte    5,534.520  74^S7o 

Cavaignac    1,448,302  19.5  % 

Ledru-Rollin    37i,43i  5      % 

Raspail    36,963  0.5  % 

Lamartine    17,914  0.25% 

Changarnier    4.687  0.05% 

Scattered   12,434  0.15% 

Votes  lost    23,219  0.30% 


Pa 

fis 

157,000 

55% 

83,000 

30% 

24,500 

97o 

14.000 

s7o 

3,200 

1% 

Total  7,449,471 

This  was  a  brilliant  victory  for  Louis  Napoleon  but  did 
not  represent  his  real  strength  in  the  country,  for  the  con- 
servatives who  had  feared  to  put  up  a  candidate  of  tlicir  own. 
discontented  moderates  such  as  Cremieux,  radicals  willing 
to  vote  for  anyone  to  defeat  Cavaignac,  socialists  seduced  by 
the  vague  socialistic  ideas  in  some  of  the  books  which  bore 
the  name  of  Louis  Napoleon — all  voted  for  the  prince. 
There  w^ere  therefore  more  radicals  than  were  shown  by  the 
vote  for  Ledru-Rollin  but  nevertheless  the  small  amount  of 
ballots  cast  for  him  was  a  bitter  pill.  Tn  only  eight  depart- 
ments did  Ledru  receive  more  than  ten  thousand  votes.  In 
nine  departments  he  ran  .second,  ahead  of  Cavaignac;  of 
these  nine,  six  were  in  the  south-west  corner  of  bVance.  three 
in  the  Loire  valley.^ 

'  Debats,  December  18,  22,  1848.  The  nine  departments  were  Allicr, 
Correze,  Dordogne,  Upper  Garonne,  Gcrs,  Indrc,  l^jt  ct  Garonne,  Kast- 
ern  Pyrenees,  Saone  ct  Loire. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 
The  Barrot  Cabinet 

On  December  20  Louis  Napoleon  Bonaparte  was  installed 
as  president  of  the  republic,  and  the  same  day  he  announced 
that  he  had  formed  a  ministry  with  Odilon  Barrot  as  pre- 
sident of  the  council  of  ministers.^  The  contrast  between 
the  president  and  the  premier  was  striking;  the  former  was 
unscrupulous  and  wily;  the  latter  was  honest  and  credulous. 
The  future  emperor  is  one  of  the  hardest  characters  in  his- 
tor)^  to  fathom.  Certainly  up  to  the  day  that  he  was 
crowned  emperor  one  thought  dominated  his  actions,  the 
idea  that  he  was  the  successor  of  his  uncle.  Under  Louis 
Philippe  he  had  made  two  ignominious  attempts  to  gain 
the  throne,  but  from  these  failures  he  had  learned  wisdom. 
It  is  hard  to  believe  that  the  foolhardy  pretender  of  the 
July  Monarchy  is  the  same  man  who  picked  his  way  care- 
fully through  the  republic,  letting  his  enemies  destroy  each 
other.  When  there  was  plotting  to  be  done,  Louis  Napo- 
leon left  it  to  his  subordinates  so  that  he  could  disavow  them 
if  they  were  unsuccessful.  He  allied  himself  now  with  one 
party,  now  with  another,  and  for  each  he  had  his  appeal. 
The  workingmen  were  attracted  by  the  vague  doctrines  of 
benevolence  and  good-will,  which  could  be  read  in  the  books 
which  bore  his  name.  To  the  bourgeoisie  he  promised  en- 
couragement of  trade  and  commerce.     The  clerical  conserva- 

^  So  little  was  known  of  the  new  president's  tendencies  that  there  had 
been  rumors  that  Ledru-Rollin  had  been  asked  to  join  the  cabinet.— 
Pot-aux-Roses,  December  18. 

262  [416 


417]  THE  BARROT  CABINET  263 

tives  relied  on  his  devotion  to  the  church.  Now,  when  he 
had  been  elected  president,  he  looked  for  a  premier  who 
would  be  neither  conservative  nor  republican. 

Odilon  Barrot  was  the  choice  made.  He  had  been  a  mon- 
archist under  Louis  Philippe,  but  as  leader  of  the  opposition 
he  had  never  entered  a  cabinet/  and  unconsciously  he  had 
helped  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  overthrow  of  the  Orleanist 
king.  He  had  accepted  the  republic  and  was  on  good  terms 
with  the  moderates.  His  chief  virtue  was  his  loyalty. 
Even  when  he  differed  from  his  colleagues  in  the  cabinet, 
he  defended  them  bravely  in  the  Assembly,  but  so  unstable 
were  his  ideas  that  he  was  willing  to  become  the  advocate 
of  what  he  had  denounced  a  year  earlier.  Few  public  men 
have  equalled  him  in  his  ability  to  be  deceived.  He  helped 
Louis  Philippe  to  the  throne  only  to  discover  that  their  ideas 
were  too  wide  apart  to  be  reconciled.  In  the  l)ain|uet  cam- 
paign of  1847  and  1848  Barrot  tried  to  obtain  slight  re- 
forms and  the  monarchy  was  overthrown.  He  worked 
loyally  to  support  the  Prince-President,  and  the  day  came 
when  he  was  to  his  great  surprise  shown  the  door  to  make 
way  for  his  own  brother.  And  in  spite  of  all  this  Odilon 
Barrot  w^ould  never  admit  that  he  was  or  hnd  l)een  wrong. 
In  his  apologia  pro  I'ita  sua  otherwise  called  rostUutnoits 
Memoirs,  he  tried  to  prove  that  every  single  measure  he 
ever  took  was  the  wisest  j)Ossible  under  the  circumstances. 
Another  phase  of  his  blindness  was  his  unfairness  to  opjK)- 
nents.  Calumnies  he  remembered,  refutations  he  forgot  or 
overlooked.  He  misread  statements  to  ilt  his  own  pre- 
conceptions.    A  more  unfit  statesman  rarely  ruled  I'Vancc. 

Of  this  honest  chameleon  now  in  a  conservative  atmos- 
phere, Ledru-Rollin,  the  consistent  democrat  and  rejiublican. 
was  the  hctc  noir.      In  February  Ixvlru  liad  snatched  the 

1  The  ephemeral  ministry  of  February.  184S,  which  lasted  barely 
twenty-four  hours,  need  not  be  counted. 


264   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [418 

reform  movement  out  of  his  hands ;  in  August  he  had  roused 
the  Assembly  against  the  investigating  committee  of  which 
Barrot  was  president.  From  then  on  imtil  the  fiasco  of 
June  13  Ledru-Rollin  was  to  seize  every  opening  given  him 
to  attack  the  Barrot  government.  The  following  is  Barrot's 
estimate  of  his  opponent: 

j\I.  Ledru-Rollin  was  a  vehement  orator  in  whom  the  de- 
magogue and  the  statesman  combined  in  such  a  way  as  to 
make  him  a  redoubtable  adversary.  .  .  .  He  belonged  to  that 
class  of  men  in  whom  ambition  and  pride  are  restrained 
neither  by  the  brain  nor  by  the  heart.  Place  such  a  man  in 
private  life,  and  he  will  fill  his  existence  with  foolish  enter- 
prises and  end  with  a  catastrophe;  throw  him  into  the  midst 
of  a  revolutionary  crisis,  and  he  will  be  Danton  or  Robespierre 
according  to  his  temperament,  sanguine  or  choleric.  AI. 
Ledru-Rollin  was  of  the  type  of  Danton,  full  of  audacity  and 
faith  in  his  own  powers;  but  sensual  and  pleasure-loving  he 
united  in  his  person  ....  the  requirements  for  a  demagogue 
but  not  for  an  apostle.  Hence  his  vacillation  and  irresolu- 
tion. In  him  ambition  replaced  fanaticism.  He  could  menace 
society,  disturb  it  profoundly,  utter  the  most  temeritous  ideas 
.  .  .  work  with  the  agents  of  disorder,  undertake  and  abandon 
conspiracies  in  company  with  them ;  we  do  not  believe  that  he 
would  have  consented  to  a  bloody  reign  of  terror.^ 

The  first  occasion  for  a  conflict  between  Barrot  and  Ledru 
came  on  December  26,  1848  less  than  a  week  after  the  in- 
auguration of  the  new  ministry.  Barrot  addressed  the  As- 
sembly, telling  how  the  unanimity  of  the  country  was  shown 
by  the  vote  of  December  10.  He  said  that  the  government 
desired  order  and  hoped  to  usher  in  a  period  of  security  after 
that  of  unrest,  tliat  order  meant  liberty  and  progress.  This 
had  an  attractive  sound,  but  several  days  earlier  General 
Changamier  had  been  appointed  both  commander-in-chief 

1  Barrot  2 :  25,  40- r. 


419]  ^^£  BARROT  CABINET  265 

of  the  National  Guard  of  the  Seine  and  commander  of  the 
first  miHtary  division,  that  is  the  regular  army  stationed 
in  and  about  Paris.  These  two  offices,  accordingly  to  the 
law,  could  not  be  held  by  the  same  individual.  Ledru-Rollic 
rose  and  protested  against  this  independent  chieftain  who, 
according  to  the  decree  investing  him  with  power,  could  for 
twenty-four  hours  issue  commands  without  consulting  the 
minister  of  war,  against  this  dictator  who  "  on  his  own 
responsibility  could  take  all  the  measures  inspired  by  reason, 
interest,  caprice."  The  basis  of  the  constitution,  Ledru 
said,  was  the  responsibility  of  all  officials;  yet  here  was  an 
official  who  for  twenty-four  hours  would  be  responsible  to 
no  one.  Moreover  this  double  command  violated  the  law 
of  1 83 1  which  forbade  an  officer  holding  an  active  command 
both  in  the  army  and  in  the  National  Guard.  Paris  was 
now  quiet ;  so  there  was  not  even  the  excuse  of  abnormal 
times.  "  The  situation  is  perilous,  for  here  is  liberty,  here 
is  the  republic  under  the  formidable  menace  of  a  forest  of 
bayonets.  It  ought  to  be  sufficient,  merely  to  point  out 
these  considerations;  they  must  impress  all  sincere  republi- 
cans and  all  serious  minds."  ^  This  speech  differs  from 
Ledru's  orations  earlier  in  the  year;  it  is  the  clear,  dispas- 
sionate pleading  of  a  lawyer,  proving  the  violation  of  the 
spirit  of  the  constitution  and  the  k-tti-r  «»f  the  law  of  i«^3i. 
Ledru-Rollin  had  a  remarkable  faculty  for  making  legal  ex- 
position clear  to  laymen. 

Rarrot  admits  in  his  Memoirs  that  in  this  debate  Ledru 
had  right  on  his  side:  "  We  had  hardly  taken  possession  of 
our  ministries  wlicn  M.  Ledru-Rolliti  began  that  scries  of 
interpellations  which  filled  and  tormented  all  our  ministerial 
existence.  Pie  chose  for  his  first  attack  an  excellent  ground 
....    I  refrained  from  denying  the  violation  ot'  the  law  of 

1  Discours  poUtiqucs  2:  149-154. 


266   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [420 

1831 ;  the  violation  was  evident.  But  I  armed  myself  with 
the  exigencies  of  the  situation."  ^  In  fact  Barrot  now' 
started  out  well  on  his  career  of  apologizing  for  manifest 
infractions  of  the  law,  infractions  of  which  he  himself  did 
not  approve.  He  declared  that  he  was  glad  to  reply  to  all 
scruples  based  on  the  high  ground  of  constitutionality,  but 
he  insisted  that  the  ministers  were  still  responsible  for  any 
acts  of  Changarnier  as  they  had  the  power  of  revoking  the 
general's  command.  These  were  not  ordinary  times,  Barrot 
said;  the  period  of  uprisings  had  scarcely  ended,  and  unity 
of  command  was  necessity;  the  chief  aim  of  the  cabinet  was 
to  maintain  order. 

Ledru  again  took  the  floor  to  rebut  the  minister.  He 
stated  correctly :  "  I  have  put  as  clearly  as  possible  a  con- 
stitutional question;  the  minister,  being  unable  to  reply  to 
the  texts  I  have  cited,  has  merely  uttered  fine  words."  He 
reiterated  that  the  ministers  were  not  truly  responsible  for 
the  acts  of  Changarnier,  for  of  what  avail  was  the  revoking 
of  his  command  if  in  the  meanwhile  the  general — this  was 
a  mere  hypothesis — should  dissolve  the  Assembly.  Deputies 
protested  against  such  a  suggestion,  but  Laissac,  a  member 
of  the  left,  shouted :  "  The  Eighteenth  Brumaire  was  some- 
thing like  that."  When  quiet  was  restored  Ledru-Rollin 
continued  to  his  second  point,  the  violation  of  the  law  of 
1 83 1,  and  he  showed  how  extraordinary  times  were  explic- 
itly defined  in  that  law  in  such  a  way  that  the  term  could 
not  be  applied  to  the  existing  state  of  affairs.  Ledru  con- 
trasted the  contradictory  pictures  drawn  by  Barrot,  on  the 
one  hand  the  revival  of  commerce  and  the  return  of  con- 
fidence, on  the  other  hand  the  fear  of  unrest.  "  You  have 
been  unconstitutional,"  Ledru-Rollin  said  in  closing,  '''  ac- 
cording to  yourselves  through  lightheadedness,  according  to 

*  Barrot  3  :  49-50. 


42 1  ]  THE  BARROT  CABINET  267 

us  deliberately;  but  whichever  way  you  take  it,  you  are 
from  this  day  on  nothing  but  an  arbitrar}^  ministry;  a  sad, 
a  very  sad  beginning."  ^  This  rebuttal  strongly  reenforced 
Ledru's  first  speech. 

]\Ialeville,  minister  of  the  interior,  made  the  best  of  a 
bad  case.  He  declared  that  the  best  guarantee  of  order 
was  the  concentration  of  command,  and  that  the  twenty- 
four  hour  limit  was  a  sufficient  guarantee  of  the  respon- 
sibility of  the  cabinet.  He  ridiculed  the  solicitude  for  the 
constitution  shown  by  the  former  minister  of  the  interior 
who  had  sent  out  the  commissioners,  and  he  warned  Ledru 
not  to  talk  so  lightly  of  infractions  of  the  constitution. 
After  another  member  of  the  Mountain,  Dain,  had  rejxiated 
the  arguments  of  his  leader,  the  Assembly,  unwilling  to 
censure  the  cabinet,  passed  to  the  order  of  the  day. 

Barrot  had  successfully  passed  through  the  ordeal  of  the 
session,  but  the  honours  of  the  debate  went  to  the  extreme 
left.  Victor  Hugo  judged  correctly:  "  It  was  sui)crlicially 
a  success,  fundamentally  a  check.  One  was  astonished  to 
see  Odilon  Barrot,  an  old  jurist,  stumble  at  his  first  step 
over  the  text  of  a  law.  The  lawyer  used  a  (juibble  at  his 
debut,  and  Ledru-Rollin  was  for  Odilon  Barrot  in  1S48 
what  Barrot  had  1)een  for  Guizot  in  1R30."  - 

During  the  remaining  life  of  the  Constituent  .Assembly 
Ledru's  speeches  may  be  divided  into  two  classes,  lie  ex- 
pounded the  foreign  policy  of  the   Mi»iint;iiii   (this  subject 

'  Discours  politiques  2:  155-9. 

•  Hugo  I  :  416.  Corkran  356-7  Iwlicvcd  that  Ix;dru  had  dcfc.itrd  Ilarrot 
in  the  debate  but  was  routed  in  turn  by  NT.ik-villc.  As  to  the  ncw-tpapcrs 
of  December  27,  the  DiHmts  declared  that  T>cdru  had  l)ecn  most  re- 
strained and  that  he  occupiefl  the  place  of  Harrot  under  the  July  mon- 
archy, but  it  asserted  tliat  Ix-dru's  texts  paled  before  Harrot's  rcasoninR, 
The  National  was  gradually  coming  over  to  the  side  of  the  radicals; 
it  considered  Ledru  profound  and  Rarrot  weak.  The  Prupir  began  a 
period  of  fulsome  praise  of  all  Ledru's  speeches. 


268   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [422 

will  be  treated  separately)  ;  he  delivered  a  series  of  attacks 
on  the  arbitrary  acts  of  the  Barrot  cabinet.  The  next  op- 
portunity for  a  conflict  with  the  government  occurred  on 
January  20,  1849.  The  legislature  had  created  a  high  court 
for  the  trial  of  treason,  and  the  ministry  desired  to  send 
before  such  a  special  court  at  Bourges  the  leaders  involved 
in  the  affair  of  INIay  15.  Eugene  Raspail,  a  member  of  the 
Mountain  and  the  nephew  of  the  prisoner  of  V'incennes,  pro- 
tested that  the  law  creating  this  tribunal  had  not  been  enacted 
until  after  May  15,  and  that  it  was  not  retroactive. 

After  Bonjean,  a  dertiit^-  of  the  right,  had  denied  re- 
troactivity, Ledru-Rollin  obtained  the  floor.  He  declared 
that  he  would  speak  clearly  and  avoid  legal  hair-splitting.  It 
was  a  commonly  accepted  principle,  he  said,  that  when  a 
malefactor  committed  a  crime,  he  should  know  the  penalty 
attached.  It  was  unfair  to  say  that  there  were  two  distinct 
matters,  the  penal  law  and  the  law  of  procedure,  and  that 
the  latter  could  be  modified  after  the  crime,  for  there  were 
cases  where  a  man  might  prefer  a  Draconian  law  and  a  jury 
to  a  milder  law  administered  by  a  court  sure  to  condemn 
him.  The  only  two  exceptions  to  the  principle  of  change  of 
venue  did  not  apply  in  this  case  under  discussion.  Besides, 
when  once  a  certain  court  had  taken  charge  of  a  matter,  as 
had  occurred  in  this  case,  the  jurisdiction  could  under  no 
circumstances  be  changed.  In  the  constitution  the  executive, 
legislative,  and  judicial  powers  had  been  clearly  separated; 
now  the  legislature  was  tr^nng  to  encroach  on  the  judiciary. 
Ledru-Rollin  next  considered  the  question  of  non-retroac- 
tivity.  He  quoted  ]\Ierlin  de  Douai  on  the  Cadoudal  case 
which,  he  showed,  presented  an  identical  situation.  He 
quoted  Solicitor-General  Dupin,  the  chief  advocate  for  the 
law  under  discussion,  and  also  Odilon  Barrot  on  the  Trans- 
nonian  affair  of  1834.  Ledru  claimed  that  the  rejection 
by  the  Assembly  of  the  Deville  amendment  that  crimes  com- 


423]  THE  BARROT  CABINET  269 

mitted  before  the  promulgation  of  the  constitution  should 
not  be  submitted  to  extraordinary  courts  did  not  imply  that 
the  Assembly  adopted  the  contrary  policy,  for  it  might  have 
believed  that  it  was  unnecessary  to  insert  this  amendment  in 
the  constitution.  Ledru  admitted  Dupin's  claim  that  when 
a  court  had  been  destroyed,  it  was  necessary  that  a  new  court 
should  take  over  its  jurisdiction,  but  he  showed  how  this 
principle  of  law  did  not  apply  in  the  present  case  since  the 
court  of  sessions,  before  which  the  prisoners  taken  May  15 
should  ht  sent,  was  still  in  existence.  He  closed  with  an  ap- 
peal to  beware  of  arbitrary  power.^  This  speech  is  another 
example  of  Ledru's  clear  exposition  for  lay  minds  of  a  com- 
plicated legal  question.  It  is  also  an  example  of  his  habit  of 
refuting  his  opponents  by  quoting  from  their  earlier  orations. 

Dupin,  the  solicitor-general,  replied  with  a  lawyer's  plea, 
emphasizing  the  refusal  of  the  accused  insurgents  to  accept 
any  jurisdiction.  When  the  discussion  was  continued  two 
days  later  Baroche,  the  district-attorney,  and  Barrot  sjwke 
for  the  government;  Jules  Favre,  Crcmieux,  and  Dupont  de 
Bussac,  all  members  of  the  left,  for  the  opposition.  The 
ministers  obtained  a  majority  in  favor  of  sending  the  ac- 
cused before  the  high  court  at  IVnirgcs,  but  the  entire  k-ft 
was  in  the  opposition.' 

On  January  26,  I^-on  Fauchcr,  the  minister  of  the  in- 
terior,'' declared  the  intention  of  the  governnient  to  !)ring 

1  Discours  politiqucs  2:  171-184. 

'The  Peuplc  of  January  23  said:  "To  ^vc  you  .m  i.ci  <>i  Juica 
Favrc's  speech  we  need  rmly  repeat  the  words  of  Lcrlru-Kolh'n  to  those 
who  interrupted  Jules  Favre:  There  is  tint  one  of  you  capahlr  of  mak- 
ing a  similar  speech."  f)n  January  20  the  Mountain  had  not  taken  part 
in  the  vote  for  vice-president,  and  44  MontaRnardn.  inchidinR  Ixdru- 
Rollin,  published  a  letter  declaring  this  fact.  —  AV/orwr.  Rhohttion 
democratique  et  socialc,  January  2I,  1849. 

'  Maleville  had  quarreled  with  I^uis  Napoleon  and.  fo^irthcr  with 
Bixio,  the  only  old-line  republican  in  the  cabinet,  had  resigned. 


270  LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [424 

in  a  bill  closing  the  clubs ;  he  requested  urgency  for  the  bill. 
A  committee  was  to  be  chosen  by  the  bureaus  to  consider 
the  question  of  urgency/  In  the  first  bureau  Ledru  op- 
posed urgency.  He  declared  that  he  spoke  in  a  bureau  for 
the  first  time  in  his  parliamentary  career.  The  bill  violated 
the  constitution,  he  said ;  the  danger  of  public  security 
seemed  to  him  a  joke;  the  government  would  next  demand 
the  suppression  of  the  press.  The  ministry  should  respect 
the  right  of  association  as  had  the  executive  commission. 
The  vote  for  a  member  of  the  committee  from  the  first 
bureau  was  close;  only  on  the  third  ballot  was  Bavoux,  a 
member  of  the  right,  chosen  by  25  votes  to  24  for  Ledru- 
Rollin." 

On  Januar}'-  27  Senard,  member  of  the  left  centre  and 
reporter  for  the  committee  to  which  the  demand  for  urgency 
had  been  submitted,  declared  that  the  subject  of  closing  the 
clubs  was  too  important  for  a  hurried  discussion  and  that 
the  existing  law  was  sufficient  for  all  needs.  Barrot  asserted 
that  the  idea  of  closing  the  clubs  had  long  been  in  people's 
minds  and  that  there  would  be  no  hurry  if  urgency  were 
agreed  to;  that  a  definite  decision  must  be  reached  and  that 
the  government  preferred  defeat  to  uncertainty.  Ledru- 
Rollin  replied  that  the  entire  responsibility  for  the  existing 
agitation  about  the  clubs  lay  with  the  government,  and  that 
to  consider  closing  the  clubs  was  a  violation  of  the  consti- 
tution, for  that  document  guaranteed  right  of  public  meet- 
ing, liberty  of  petition,  and  freedom  of  the  press.  "  Only 
the  exercise  of  these  rights  can  be  limited  in  order  to  main- 
tain public  security."  Urgency  should  not  be  voted  to 
mutilate   the   constitution.     Barrot    asked   why   delay  was 

^  The  French  legislature  is  divided  by  lot  into  bureaus  which  discuss 
any  bills  before  the  official  debate  in  the  united  assembly  and  which 
elect  members  of  committees  to  consider  bills. 

'  Constitiitionnel,  Debats,  January  28,  1S49. 


425]  THE  BARROT  CABINET  27 1 

necessary  if  the  question  was  a  constitutional  one.  Senard 
declared  that  it  was  a  question  of  expediency  as  well  as 
of  constitutionality.  The  question  was  put,  and  urgency 
was  rejected  by  a  majority  consisting  of  the  lefts  and  the 
centre  combined.^ 

After  this  vote  Ledru  presented  an  impeachment  of  the 
ministers  for  considering  the  closing  of  the  clubs.  It  was 
signed  by  Ledru-Rollin  and  forty  eight  other  Montagnards.- 
This  action  was  a  mistake  in  policy,  for  the  Mountain  fell 
into  the  error  against  which  Alaleville  had  warned  them,  that 
of  declaring  at  too  slight  a  pretext  that  the  constitution  had 
been  violated.  It  was  a  debatable  point  whether  the  con- 
stitution would  have  been  violated  by  this  law.  l)ut  the  con- 
sequence was  that,  when  in  June  1849  the  ^Mountain  had  a 
far  better  case,  the  country  felt  that  the  extreme  left  had 
already  cried  ivolf  too  often. 

A  period  of  agitation  now  followed.  Thiers  remarked 
to  Persigny,  the  confidant  of  the  Prince-President ;  "  The 
country  is  lost.  .  .  .  We  are  tumbling  into  anarchy.  The 
Assembly  is  dominated  by  the  clubs  of  Paris;  Ledru-Rollin 
is  master  of  the  situation.  In  a  week  we  shall  have  the 
terror  and  the  scaffold.  .  .  .  Tell  the  Prince  that  1  can  do 
nothing  for  him."''  According  to  Victor  Hugo.  Marrast 
made  the  remark:  "This  l)rute  of  a  l.i-(lni-lM»Iliii  will  end 
by  throwing  us  to  that  brute  of  a  I'laiKiui."  *  As  a  matter 
of   fact   real   danger   was   threatened   rather   by   the    15oiia- 

*  Lcdru  was  again  a  candidate  for  mcmbcrsliip  on  the  committee  for 
the  discussion  of  the  bill,  but  he  received  on  the  first  bureau  only  8 
votes  out  of  42. — Dcbats,  January  30.  18^9. 

^Reformc,  Rh'olulion  dcmncraliquc  ft  socialc.  January  ^),  lS4«}; 
Times,  January  .31.  Five  newspapers  and  the  prcsirlcnts  of  varioiiH 
clubs  also  asked  the  impeachment  of  the  c.\h\nc\.  —  RhoUtlion  dfmo- 
cratiqtie  et  socialc,  January  27. 

*  Persigny  39-40. 
*Hugo  2:  13. 


oyo   LEDRU-ROLLIX  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [426 

partists.  On  January  29  an  uprising  was  feared.  The  events 
of  this  "  day  ''  are  very  obscure.  Marrast,  president  of  the 
Assembly,  ordered  certain  troops  to  approach  the  Palais 
Bourbon  and  protect  it.  General  Changarnier,  neglected, 
overlooked,  or  disobeyed  the  order,  and  assuming  dictatorial 
powers,  told  the  troops  to  listen  only  to  his  commands.  But 
times  were  not  ripe  for  a  change,  and  on  the  thirtieth  Paris 
awoke  to  find  that  neither  the  threatened  popular  uprising 
nor  the  Bonapartist  coup  d'etat  had  materialized.  The  day 
had,  however,  shown  the  insubordination  of  General 
Changarnier. 

As  nothing  was  done  about  the  impeachment  of  the  min- 
isters, on  January  31,  Vezin,  a  member  of  the  right,  asked 
whether  it  had  been  withdrawn,  and  if  not  why  it  had  not  been 
referred  to  the  bureaus.  Ledru  replied  that  he  himself  had 
been  instructed  by  the  signatories  to  make  the  same  demand ; 
not  only  was  the  impeachment  not  withdrawn  but  further 
accusations  would  be  added  to  it.^  In  fact  the  extreme  left 
published  a  protest  against  the  events  of  January  29.-  On 
Februar}^  3  Baze,  a  member  of  the  extreme  right,  asked  wh}^ 
the  further  accusations  had  not  been  produced  and  demanded 
urgency  for  the  discussion  of  the  impeachment.  The  As- 
sembly rejected  this  demand,  and  that  was  the  last  heard 
of  the  entire  matter. 

One  of  the  clubs  which  the  government  most  feared  was 
the  Solidarite  repiiblicaine.  On  January  10  Leon  Faucher 
had  written  to  the  prefects  that  there  existed  such  a  club 
with  central  offices  at  Paris  and  branches  in  the  departments, 
that  this  was  a  state  within  a  state  and  therefore  a  menace, 
that  it  was  an  unauthorized  society  and  a  secret  club,  and 
the  law  of  July  23,  1847  forbade  both  secret  clubs  and  cor- 

^  Monitetir  331. 

^Reforme,  February  3;  Dcbats,  February  i.  The  signatories  were 
almost  the  same  as  those  to  the  impeachment. 


427]  ^^-E  BARROT  CABINET  273 

respondence  between  clubs,  that  the  government  had  not 
used  its  authority  during  the  electoral  period,  but  that  it  had 
closed  the  central  club  on  December  12  with  the  approval  of 
the  Assembly,  that  the  association  did  not  consider  itself 
dissolved,  and  that  therefore  the  prefects  were  to  prevent 
its  meetings/  The  officers  of  the  Solidaritc  rcf>iiblicaine 
replied  that  their  club  had  never  l^een  dissolved,  and  that 
it  could  not  be  since  it  had  complied  with  all  legal  restric- 
tions.' Leon  Faucher  admitted  that  it  was  not  the  Solidarite 
rcpuhlicaine  that  had  been  raided  on  December  12  but  another 
club  using  the  same  rooms,  but  he  maintained  his  earlier 
instructions  since  the  Solidarite  rcpublicaine  was  a  club  with 
branches  and  since  its  failure  to  declare  itself  before  the 
authorities  and  its  clandestine  work  constituted  it  a  secret 
society.^  Thus  Faucher  admitted  that  he  had  given  incor- 
rect information  in  his  first  circular,  but  declared  that  he 
did  not  care  if  he  had,  and  he  made  new  accusations  for 
which  he  produced  no  evidence  and  which  were  partly  false.* 
One  of  the  government's  actions  on  January  29  was  an- 
other raid  on  the  rooms  of  the  Solidarite  rrpiiblicainc.  On 
the  thirty-first  ]Martin  Bernard,  ])resident  of  the  society,  in- 
terpellated the  government  on  this  high-handed  pr(H-edure. 
Barrot  replied  that  the  raid  was  a  purely  legal  inattrr. 
I-^dru  desired  to  know  whether  the  government  claimed  that 
there  had  been  a  plot  or  whether  it  was  bringing  charge>; 

1  Moiiilcur  273,  January  27. 

^  Ibid.,  303;  Revolution  dniiocraliquc  ct  socialr.  January  -jo.  SiKiird 
by  Lcdru,  13  other  deputies,  and  14  non-deputies.  Sec  also  Cmzcttc  dfs 
Tribunaux,  Dcccml^cr  14,  1849. 

'  Monitciir  for  1849,  p.  303, 

*  The  clul)  which  was  closed  on  DeccmlKT  12  may  have  Ihth  tlio 
Friends  of  Political  Democracy,  formed  for  purposes  of  discussion  by 
the  Mountain  and  the  memlK-rs  of  the  h-ft.  Lcdrti,  l-'loron,  I-«ndrin. 
Glais-Bizoin,  and  Lamartine  were  all  meml)crs.  l'"or  details,  sec  AV- 
forme,  December  28. 


274   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [42S 

asrainst  an  association:  in  the  former  case  it  was  a  matter 
for  the  judiciary,  in  the  latter  for  the  legislature.  He 
warned  the  Assembly  that  all  kinds  of  associations  might 
be  attacked,  conservative  as  well  as  radical.  Baroche,  the 
attorney-general,  interrupted  to  declare  that  it  made  no  dif- 
ference whether  there  had  been  a  plot  or  an  accusation 
against  an  association,  that  the  government  had  turned 
the  matter  over  to  the  courts,  and  that  the  previous  orator 
should  defend  himself  there.  Ledru  resumed :  The  associa- 
tion had  been  attacked,  for  twenty-seven  of  its  members  had 
been  arrested  at  its  headquarters.  The  courts  were  slow  and 
it  had  always  been  the  practice  to  bring  such  matters  before 
the  legislature.  The  raid  was  not  a  mere  isolated  occurrence 
but  part  of  the  general  high-handed  proceedings  of  January 
29.  The  Solidarite  repuhlicaine  was  not  the  only  associa- 
tion with  branches ;  for  instance,  there  existed  the  conserva- 
tive Friends  of  the  Constitution.  The  matter  concerned  a 
violation  of  the  right  of  public  meetings.  The  SolidaritS. 
republicaine  was  not  a  secret  society;  its  constitution  had 
been  published  and  its  placards  had  been  openly  posted. 
It  was  a  society  founded  for  electoral  purposes  and  to  give 
aid  to  workingmen.  It  had  been  registered  as  prescribed  by 
the  law.  It  had  none  of  the  characteristics  of  a  secret 
society  as  defined  by  Solicitor-General  Dupin.  All  parties 
ought  to  side  with  the  Mountain  on  this  question,  as  all 
clubs  existed  by  the  same  right  as  this  one.  "  The  Solidarite 
republicaine  has  its  roots  in  the  constitution  and  you  cannot 
close  it  without  violating  the  constitution."  ^  This  speech 
made  out  a  good  case  for  the  association,  but  rambled  more 
than  Ledru's  better  orations.  The  Assembly  was  tired  of 
the  discussion  and  passed  to  the  order  of  the  day. 

A  few  days  later  the  radical  deputies  complained  to  the 
attorney-general  of  the  slanders  against  the  association  in 

^  Moniteur  for  1849,  pp.  331-2. 


429]  ^^^  BARROT  CABINET  275 

the  legitimist  Assemblce  nationale.  Of  course  no  action  was 
taken  against  this  newspaper/ 

When  the  first  anniversary  of  the  foundation  of  the  re- 
public arrived  the  republicans  could  not  let  it  pass  without 
notice.  On  February  24  Ledru  was  toasted  at  various  ban- 
quets in  the  provinces  and  even  in  England."  At  Paris  on 
the  twenty-third  fifty-six  members  of  the  Mountain,  includ- 
ing Ledru,  eight  radical  or  socialist  newspapers,  and  various 
associations  which  supported  the  policies  of  the  extreme  left 
issued  a  proclamation  exalting  the  republic  but  urging  the 
people  to  be  quiet. ^ 

On  February  25  a  great  banquet  was  held  in  the  Rue 
Martel.  Twelve  hundred  guests,  including  many  members 
of  the  Mountain,  sat  down  to  table,  and  the  galleries  were 
filled  with  spectators.  Special  tables  were  reserved  for  the 
families  of  the  prisoners  at  Vincennes  and  of  the  deported 
revolutionists.  Several  speeches  were  made.  A  certain 
Brice-Bar  from  the  United  States  declared  that  the  republics 
of  the  new  world  considered  France  as  a  sister.  Ledru- 
Rollin  replied.  He  thanked  the  American,  but  declared  that 
homage  was  due  particularly  to  their  al)sent  brothers,  tiio 
martyrs  in  the  prisons,  and  the  revolutionists  (U'ljorted  to  the 
colonies.  Republicans  might  feel  bitter,  I^dru  said,  when 
they  looked  at  the  existing  condition  of  affairs,  but  a  glorious 
future  awaited  them.  The  revolutionary  movenieut  had 
three  forms:  the  movement  (A  nationality,  the  jM)litical  re- 
volution, and  the  social  transformation  which  was  the  final 
goal.  All  started  from  the  revolution  of  I^'cbruary,  and  no 
reactionary    government    in    the    world    could    slop    tluni. 

'  Revolution  democratiquc  et  socialc,  Pcuple.  February  .^  These 
papers  published  the  names  of  47  sijfnatorics  inchidinf;  I.cdrii,  "  liut 
others  will  sign  tomorrow." 

*  Revolution  democratiquc  ct  socinlr,  Nfarch  15. 

'Ibid..  Reforme,  Fcuple,  February  24. 


276  LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [430 

The  force  of  the  democratic  idea  was  invincible;  the  army 
was  powerless  against  it.  "  The  army!  But  it  is  composed 
of  our  brothers.  Let  it  remain  but  a  month  in  Paris  and  it 
becomes  socialist.  Do  you  know  what  is  done  then?  The 
authorities  send  from  the  capital  the  diseased  regiments,  as 
they  call  them,  and  these  diseased  regiments  carry  to  the 
provinces  the  disease  of  socialism."'  Ledru  said  that  his 
party  demanded  not  merely  universal  suffrage  but  the  organ- 
ization of  labor  and  that  this  demand  would  be  obtained ;  that 
his  opponents  might  as  well  oppose  the  course  of  a  mountain 
torrent  as  the  will  of  the  people.^ 

Of  the  speeches  made  at  this  banquet  of  February  25  the 
most  remarked  were  those  of  Pierre  Leroux,  Felix  Pyat, 
and  Ledru-Rollin.  Ledru's  discourse  is  very  important  as 
it  marks  the  point  where  he  proclaimed  himself  a  socialist. 
The  significance  of  this  has  rarely  been  grasped  by  histor- 
ians. Not  a  single  belief  did  the  leader  of  the  Mountain 
change.  He  had  always  advocated  social  reforms,  but  he 
had  denied  that  he  was  a  socialist  since  he  thought  that 
that  meant  accepting  communism.  Now  he  accepted 
neither  communism  nor  Utopianism,  but  he  changed  his 
opinion  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  socialism,  and  he 
was  willing  to  let  his  ideas  be  called  socialist,  the  same  ideas, 
as  Mathieu  de  la  Drome  had  pointed  out,  that  he  had  held 
in  1 84 1.  This  attitude  of  Ledru  meant  a  union  of  the 
radicals  and  socialists  in  the  democratic  and  social  party, 
an  alliance  which  lasted  through  the  second  empire. 

Ledru-Rollin's  speech,  especially  the  part  on  the  socialist 
propaganda  in  the  army,  caused  much  alarm  in  conservative 
ranks.  Mole  desired  that  Ledru's  assertion  as  to  the  army 
be  publicly  denied  in  the  Assembly,^  and  General  Bugeaud 

^Revolution  democratique  et  socialc,  February  26;  Reforme,  Peuple, 
February  27. 

*  Castellane  4 :  140. 


43 1 ]  THE  BARROT  CABIXET  2yy 

wrote  to  Faucher  that  Ledru  ought  to  be  prosecuted  for 
his  utterances.^  The  government  printed  in  the  Monitcur 
a  statement  that  Ledru-Rolhn's  words  were  "  an  insult  to 
the  army.  .  .  .  France  is  not  sociahst;  M.  Ledru-RolHn  and 
his  friends  know  that  perfectly  well."  "  Ledru  wrote  to 
the  Moniteur,  asserting  that  Faucher  was  evidently  the 
author  of  this  notice  and,  that  deputies  ought  not  to  be 
attacked  in  an  official  publication.  He  denied  the  rumor 
that  any  one  had  cheered  the  guillotine.  He  maintained 
that  the  army  was  attached  to  democratic  principles  and  he 
mentioned  a  banquet  of  non-commissioned  officers  in  which 
the  Alountain  and  the  democratic  and  social  republic  were 
toasted,  but  he  declared  that  this  was  not  an  insurrectionary 
gathering  as  Bugeaud  and  Changarnier  had  been  similarly 
honored.^  The  Moniteur  acknowledged  receipt  of  this  com- 
munication but  refused  to  publish  it  '*  Ijecause  it  rectified 
nothing  and  there  is  nothing  to  rectify."  * 

On  March  i,  1849,  the  schools  held  a  banquet,  but  it  was 
closed  by  the  police.  On  the  third  Martin  Bernard  inter- 
pellated the  minister  of  the  interior  on  this  subject.  I  le  de- 
clared that  the  schools  held  these  banquets  every  Thursday, 
that  on  March  i  the  prefect  of  police  had  interfered  and 
that  he  himself  had  argued  with  the  prefect  as  to  the  right 
to  intervene,  that  the  police  had  made  a  sudden  and  brutal 
attack,  and  Bernard  asked  wlu-tlicr  the  ininisk-r  of  ilu-  in- 
terior approved  this  action.  Ix-on  I'auchcr  rei)lied  that 
the  radical  banqueters  did  not  care  for  i)ublicity  a?;  did  the 
liberal  monarchists  under  the  July  mojiarchy,  that  tlu-  very 
periodicity  of  the  school  baiKjuets  proved  their  political 
character,  that  the  red  ribbf>ns  on  the  platform  and  on  the 

'Letter  of  .March  3  in  Rnolulion  ilr  iS.iS.  3:  m,^. 

*  Monitcur  679,  March  2. 

*  Refonnc,  March  3;  Pcu(>le,  March   ). 

*  Moniteur  693. 


278   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [432 

orators  proved  the  desire  for  disorder,  that  by  the  law 
of  1790  the  prefect  of  pohce  had  the  right  to  enter,  that 
no  violence  had  been  used.  Pierre  Leroux  claimed  that  the 
banquet  was  a  friendly  affair.  Victor  Grandin,  member 
of  the  right,  asserted  that  the  ministry  was  not  sufficiently 
severe,  that  the  terrible  poverty  was  caused  by  the  doctrines 
enunciated  in  the  clubs,  by  such  statements  as  those  of  Ledru 
at  the  banquet  of  February  25. 

Of  course  this  challenge  brought  Ledru-Rollin  to  his 
feet.  He  ridiculed  the  fear  of  the  radicals  as  "  a  pitiful 
phantasmagoria  employed  by  the  late  monarchy  against  M. 
Grandin  himself  when  he  was  in  opposition."  He  quoted 
Duvergier  de  Hauranne,  Maleville,  and  Barrot  in  connection 
with  the  banquet  agitation  in  1847.  Ledru  asserted  that  it 
was  foolish  to  blame  the  misery  of  the  people  on  those  who 
were  constantly  working  for  the  amelioration  of  the  lot  of 
the  proletariat  by  social  reforms.  Turning  to  the  legal  as- 
pects of  the  matter  Ledru  showed  that  the  law  of  1790  as 
interpreted  by  the  constitution  of  1791  did  not  apply  to  such 
interference  as  had  just  occurred.  He  ended  brilliantly. 
He  told  how  Guizot  had  warned  Barrot  when  the  latter  was 
defending  the  right  of  public  meeting:  "Take  care,  for  if 
you  are  ever  on  the  same  benches  as  we,  pursued  by  the 
same  exigencies,  you  will  act  as  we  are  acting ;  "  how  Barrot 
had  cried :  "  I  guarantee  that  I  shall  not,  I  take  a  formal 
engagement  to  that  effect ;  "  how  Guizot  had  disdainfully  re- 
torted: "I  do  not  accept  M.  Barrot's  guarantee."  Then 
Ledru  concluded ;  "  When  the  head  of  the  present  govern- 
ment thus  verified  M.  Guizot's  suspicions  to  the  letter,  he 
underwent  in  my  eyes  the  cruellest  of  all  punishments."  ^ 

1  Discours  poUtiqiics  2 :  198-205.  On  Dklarch  4  the  National,  now  a 
whole-hearted  supporter  of  the  radicals,  considered  Ledru's  speech 
"concise,  nervous,  extremely  logical."     Th^  Rh'olution  dSniocratique  ct 


433]  '^^^  BARROT  CABIXET  2'j() 

It  is  no  wonder  that  Odilon  Barrot  did  not  like  the  con- 
sistent Ledru-RolHn  who  over  and  over  again  refuted  him 
out  of  his  own  mouth.  Barrot  was  the  kind  of  lawyer  who 
could  argue  equally  well  on  either  side  of  a  question.  He 
now  made  an  attempt  to  defend  himself.  He  declared  that 
the  government  stood  for  liberty  against  license,  that  his 
party  had  always  welcomed  the  presence  of  the  authorities 
at  the  banquets,  that  his  duty  was  to  defend  the  public. 

Berard,  a  member  of  the  right,  tried  to  turn  against  the 
leader  of  the  Mountain  Ledru's  own  device  of  proving  the 
inconsistency  of  his  opponents ;  he  asked  whether  the  radical 
leader  who  had  just  spoken  was  the  same  man  who  had 
gloried  in  suppressing  the  insurrections  of  April  i6  and 
May  15.  Denjoy,  bitterest  of  conservatives,  protested 
against  the  partiality  of  President  Marrast,  who  had  al- 
lowed the  left  to  interrupt  Barrot  but  who  had  silenced  the 
right  while  Ledru-Rollin  spoke.  The  .Assembly,  glad  to  end 
a  discussion  in  which  the  conservative  majority  did  not 
shine,  passed  to  the  order  of  the  day. 

At  last  the  bill  on  the  closing  of  the  clubs  came  up  for 
discussion,  and  against  the  strenuous  opposition  of  the  en- 
tire left,  joined  by  part  of  the  centre,  article  one  was  passed 
by  404  votes  to  303.  On  the  law  it.self  the  extreme  left 
refrained  from  voting.  One  hundred  and  nine  (K'i)utios 
signed  a  protest:  "Article  one  of  the  law  on  clubs  is  a 
violation  of  the  constitution.  We  have  ])rotc.sted  by  our 
vote;  we  have  protested  by  refraining  from  voting."  ' 

socialc  said:  "It  is  generally  aclmittc<!  that  M.  I-cdru-KdIliii  has.  Ik-coihc 
the  greatest  orator  of  the  Asscmhly."  The  Pcuplc  continued  its  policy 
of  praising  Ledru. 

'  Resolution  democratiquc  cl  socialc.  Rr forme,  l^cuple,  D/hals,  Con- 
stitulionncl.  March  22-25.  Sixty-.scvcn  members  of  the  .Mf)Untain  and 
forty-two  independent  members  of  the  extreme  left,  such  as  ITtirnnc 
Arago  and  Flocon,  signed.     Seven  newspapers  signified  their  api»roval. 


CHAPTER  XIX 

End  of  the  Constituent  Assembly 

By  March  1849  parties  in  the  Constituent  Assembly  had 
become  definitely  organized.  The  Alountain  had  become 
smaller  than  it  was  nine  months  earlier,  but  it  now  voted  as  a 
solid  unit.  Long  before  March  Jules  Favre,  Landrin  and 
the  members  of  the  left  had  separated  from  this  group. 
Somewhat  later  Flocon  and  the  less  revolutionary  members 
of  the  extreme  left  had  severed  connections  with  the  radical 
club.  There  remained,  therefore,  a  comparatively  small  but 
united  group.  Its  headquarters  had  been  moved  from  the 
Rue  de  Taitbout  to  7  Rue  neuve  des  bons  Enfants,  and  on 
April  16  they  were  to  be  moved  again  to  6  Rue  du  Hasard, 
where  they  were  to  remain  till  after  June  13,  1849.  Lamen- 
nais  was  the  titular  head  of  the  ^Mountain,  but  Ledru-Rollin 
was  its  guiding  spirit  and  chief  spokesman.  There  exists 
no  list  of  the  members  of  this  group,  but  from  the  numerous 
manifestoes,  impeaclmients,  and  protests  signed  by  them, 
it  is  possible  to  ascertain  who  were  certainly  Montagnards, 
who  were  possible  members  of  this  group,  and  who  belonged 
to  the  independent  extreme  left. 

Undoubted  ^Mountain  66 

Questionable  Mountain   13 

Independent  extreme  left  49 

Total  extreme  left 1.28  ^ 

1  Undoubted  members  of  the  Mountain  were :  Arnaud  du  Var,  a\staix, 
Bac,    Baune,    Benoit,    Martin    Bernard,    Bertholon,    Bravard-Toussaint, 
280  [434 


435]  £^VZ)  OF  THE  CONSTITUENT  ASSEMBLY  281 

Working  in  frequent  cooperation  with  the  extreme  left 
was  the  left  proper,  composed  of  such  deputies  as  Jules 
Favre,  Glais-Bizoin,  Landrin,  Recurt,  and  Trelat ;  this  group 
met  at  the  Palais  National.  Cremieux.  Lamartine,  and 
their  friends  were  not  affiliated  with  this  organization  but 
worked  with  it,  and  the  Gamier- Pages  coterie  frequently  sup- 
ported it.  The  other  parties  of  the  Chaniljer  of  Deputies 
were  the  left  centre  (Franqois  Arago,  Marrast,  Senard),  the 
centre  (Cavaignac,  Marie),  the  Dufaure  right  centre,  the 
Barrot  right  centre,  the  right  (Thiers),  and  the  extreme 
right  (Falloux).  The  three  last-named  groups  met  together 
in  the  club  of  the  Rue  de  Poitiers. 

Ledru-Rollin  continued  his  attacks  on  the  Barrot  govern- 
ment. On  April  3  he  and  a  member  of  the  left  centre  named 
Deludre  introduced  an  amendment  to  the  budget,  cutting  off 
the  salary  of  General  Changarnier  as  commander-in-chief 

Breymand,  Brives,  Bruys,  Buvigiiier,  Caliis,  Cliolat,  Clement.  Dain, 
David  d'Angers,  Delbetz,  Demontry,  Detours,  Deville,  Doutrc,  Dubarry, 
Paulin  and  Xavier  Dtirrieu,  Fargin-Fayolle,  Gambon,  Gent.  Grcppo, 
Guinard,  Jandeau,  Joigneaux,  Joly  Jr.,  Joly  Sr.,  Labroussc,  I.a«raiiK'C, 
Lamennais,  Lasteyras,  Laurent  de  I'Ardcche.  Led  ru- Roll  in,  Pierre  1^- 
franc,  Pierre  Leroux,  Madet,  Maichain,  Mathe,  .Matliieu  de  la  Drome, 
Menand,  Michot-Boutet,  Auguste  Mic,  Morhery,  .Mule.  DemostluMic 
Ollivier,  Pegot-Ogier,  Pellelier,  Perdiguier,  Proudiion,  I-V-lix  Pyat, 
Eugene  Raspail,  Raynal,  Robert,  Ronjat.  Germain  Sarrut.  Victor  Scbocl- 
cher,  Signard,  Terrier,  Vignertc.  Questionable  memlx-rs  of  tlic  Moun- 
tain were:  Bochard,  Pierre  Bc/napartc.  Delbrel.  Ducluzeau,  Ducoux, 
Laussedat,  Pietri,  Pin,  Rcnaud.  Renou  de  Ballon.  Richard,  Target,  Yves. 
Independent  memlx;r.s  of  the  extreme  left  were:  Antoine.  LmmanucI 
and  liticnne  Arago,  .Arnaud  de  I'.Ariege.  .Audry  dc  Puyravault.  ,'\/crm, 
Bajard,  Baume,  Bourzat,  J-'rancisquc  Houvct.  Hrard,  Hrucknrr.  <'ancl, 
Champy,  ChaufTour,  Chavoix.  Considcrant,  Curnier,  Demortreux.  Du- 
douy,  Durand-Savoyat,  ICspagne,  I'awticr,  Flocon,  Carlos  l'*orcl,  Gloxin, 
Guiter,  Hingray,  Kestner,  Kocnig.  Laflizc,  Lagardc,  I>cl>arillicr,  Ix:fraii- 
Qois,  Alphonse  Marie.  Medal.  Millarcl,  Pascal  <l',\ix.  Pcniercs.  Picard, 
Quinet,  Reverchon,  ^^a^tin  Rey.  General  Key,  Jean  Rcynaud,  St.  Gau- 
dens,  Schlosscr,  Viox,  Wcstcrcamp. 


282   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [436 

of  the  National  Guard.  Deludre  explained  that  Changarnier 
had  now  held  his  illegal  double  command  for  three  months 
and  ought  not  to  receive  a  double  salary.  Leon  Faucher 
asserted  that  the  double  command  was  only  a  temporary 
measure  and  that  fear  of  disturbances  was  not  yet  over. 
Ledru  could  not  let  slip  this  opportunity  of  criticizing  the 
government.  The  ministers  originally  stated,  he  declared, 
that  this  violation  of  the  law  of  1831  was  a  temporary 
measure,  but  they  had  attempted  to  make  it  permanent  by 
eternally  declaring  that  order  had  been  troubled.  "  The 
necessity  of  maintaining  order  is  constantly  being  asserted. 
But  order  does  not  exist  when  there  is  anarchy  in  the  laws." 
Ledru  then  reiterated  his  claim  as  to  Changarnier's  lack  of 
responsibility.  He  insisted  that  either  the  cabinet  should  re- 
gularize the  situation  by  having  the  law  of  183 1  repealed  or 
that  the  Assembly  should  refuse  the  appropriation  for  the 
salary  of  the  dictator.^  Faucher  again  asserted  the  respon- 
sibility of  the  ministry  for  the  acts  of  Changarnier.  Var- 
ious orators  of  the  left  and  centre  supported  the  reduction 
of  the  budget,  and  the  amendment  was  passed  361  to  304. 
A  self-respecting  cabinet  would  after  this  either  have  re- 
signed or  have  rectified  the  act  blamed.  Faucher  and 
Barrot  did  nothing. 

The  conservatives  received  another  setback  a  few  days 
later.  The  imposition  of  the  tax  of  forty-five  centimes  was 
one  of  the  most  unpopular  acts  of  the  provisional  govern- 
ment. On  April  12  accordingly,  during  the  discussion  on 
the  budget  Chavoix,  a  member  of  the  extreme  left,  intro- 
duced an  amendment  to  repay  the  sums  collected  on  this 
tax.  During  the  debate  Duclerc,  minister  of  the  treasury 
under  the  executive  commission,  asserted  that  the  finances 
had  been  in  a  flourishing  state  until  Ledru-RoUin's  circular 

^  Moniteur  1224. 


^37]  ^^D  OF  THE  COXSTITUENT  ASSEMBLY  jg 


o 


of  March  12  had  caused  a  panic.  State  l3ankruptcy  had  been 
proposed,  he  added.  "By  whom?"  inquired  Ledru. 
Duclerc  refused  to  answer,  but  said  that  paj^er  money  was 
proposed  by  Ledru-RoUin.  This  attack  brought  Ledru  to 
his  feet.  He  declared  that  the  word  bankruptcy  had  been 
pronounced  and  that  the  name  of  the  person  who  had  sug- 
gested it  ought  to  be  made  pubHc.  He  showed  how  the  finan- 
cial condition  of  France  had  l>een  bad  Ijefore  February  1848 
and  how  consequently  the  circular  of  March  12  could  not 
have  caused  the  lamentable  state  of  affairs.  Ledru  said 
that  he  had  advocated  a  tax  of  one  franc  fifty  but  only  on 
the  rich,  and  also  paper  money  and  proportional  taxes,  but 
that  he  had  opposed  state  bankruptcy.^  Duclerc  now  ad- 
mitted that  neither  Ledru  nor  Flocon  had  advcxated  bank- 
ruptcy, and  he  stated  that  he  had  not  mentioned  the  tax  on 
the  rich  alone  as  it  was  an  undemocratic  measure.  Goud- 
chaux,  the  first  finance  minister  of  the  republic,  asserted  the 
absolute  sanity  of  all  Ledru's  financial  suggestions  and  de- 
clared that  no  member  of  the  provisional  government  had 
advocated  bankruptcy.  Dupont  de  I'Furc  made  a  similar 
statement.  The  amendment  to  repay  the  money  collected 
on  the  tax  of  forty-five  centimes  was  nf>\v  rciciMcd,  only  (he 
left  favoring  it.' 

The  subject  of  the  financial  policies  of  the  provisional 
government  was  resumed  on  April  21.  Goudchaux  ex- 
plained that  bankruptcy  had  never  been  proj)osc(l  but  that 
suspension  of  payments  bad  been  suggested  to  several  innn- 
bers  of  the  provisional  government  and  to  their  ministers. 
He  then  asked  the  author  of  the  suggestion  to  arise,  but  no 
one  moved.     Ledru  asserted  that  it  was  all-imi)ortant  that 

1  Discours  poliliqucs  2:271-8.     For  extracts,  sec  pp.  86-9. 

*  On  April  14  the  Ducos  commission  prcscntcrl  its  report  exonerating 
the  financial  administration  of  the  provisional  Rovcrnment.  Sec  pp.  6j, 
83-  90.  13I1  164,  241.     Ledru  had  Inren  heard  Iwforc  it  on  March  i^». 


284  LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOXD  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [43S 

the  person  who  had  advocated  the  suspension  be  named, 
that  this  person  could  defend  his  idea  as  he  was  a  deputy. 
Ledru  then  related  how  Delamarre  ^  had  proposed  a  forced 
loan.  He  explained  that  calumnies  had  been  circulated 
against  his  own  personal  integrity  and  that  the  courts  had 
declared  that  they  had  no  jurisdiction  in  such  a  case.'  Thus 
it  was  his  duty,  Ledru  said,  when  the  opportunity  offered, 
to  tear  the  mask  from  one  of  his  opponents.' 

Goudchaux  maintained  that  he  was  in  honor  bound  not 
to  violate  the  confidence  reposed  in  him  and  that  therefore 
he  could  not  name  the  man  who  had  proposed  to  him  sus- 
pension of  payments.  He  told  how  Fould,  a  Bonapartist 
banker,  had  criticized  him  for  paying  out  money  as  obliga- 
tions came  due.  Ledru  and  a  fellow-]\Iontagnard  inter- 
rupted to  say  that  Fould  then  must  be  the  man  who  had 
suggested  suspension  of  payments.  "  I  say  no,"  replied  the 
Bonapartist  banker.  "  I  say  yes,"  shouted  Goudchaux. 
Imagine  the  sensation.  Fould  tried  explanations  and 
denials,  but  his  defense  was  overthrown  by  Goudchaux, 
supported  by  ]\Iarrast  and  Cremieux.  Even  Barrot  was  con- 
vinced that  Fould  was  prevaricating.* 

This  debate  was  a  triumph  for  the  republicans.  The  onus 
of  shady  financial  suggestions  was  thrown  back  on  a  pro- 
minent Bonapartist,  Fould,  and  on  a  prominent  Orleanist, 
Delamarre.  The  latter  sent  a  letter  to  the  Assembly  ask- 
ing  for   authorization   to  prosecute   Ledru-Rollin    for   his 

*  Ledru  did  not  name  him,  but  members  of  the  extreme  left  shouted 
his  name  from  their  benches.     See  pp.  89-90. 

2  See  page  61. 

^  Moniteur  1480. 

*Barrot  3:  188-9.  Barrot  admits  that  Ledru  was  cleared  of  the  charge 
of  advocating  bankruptcy,  but  unable  to  be  just  to  an  adversary,  he 
adds :  "  When  M.  Ledru-RoIlin  proposed  paper  money  ...  did  he  not 
render  bankruptcy  inevitable?" 


439]  ^-^'-^  OF  THE  COXSTITUEXT  ASSEMBLY  285 

calumnies.  On  April  25  at  Ledru-Rollin's  own  request  the 
letter  was  read.  The  accused  deputy  maintained  his  state- 
ments. The  Assembly  on  the  motion  of  Barraguey  d'Hilliers, 
president  of  the  Rue  de  Poitiers  group,  voted  the  previous 
question,  as  representatives  could  not  be  prosecuted  for 
statements  made  in  the  Assembly. 

Meanwhile  Ledru  had  found  a  new  opportunity  to  attack 
the  government.  Preparations  were  being  made  for  the 
elections  to  the  new  legislature  and  the  various  parties  were 
holding  campaign  meetings.  On  April  10  Ledru-Rollin  in- 
terpellated the  minister  of  the  interior  on  the  intervention  of 
the  police  in  these  meetings.  Pie  explained  that  many  large 
cities  were  irritated  at  this  intervention  and  that  in  some 
cases  the  municipal  authorities  had  even  handed  in  their 
resignations  in  consequence.  He  asked  how  the  govern- 
ment justified  this  interference.'  Faucher  replied  that  many 
clubs  had  transformed  themselves  into  electoral  assemblies 
and  that  it  was  necessary  to  discover  which  were  true  cam- 
paign meetings  and  which  were  clubs.  Rither  the  meetings 
were  secret,  he  said,  and  therefore  forbidden,  or  they  were 
public  and  then  the  police  merely  looked  on.  1  le  gave  ex- 
amples of  anarchistic  doctrines  uttered  by  extreme  revolution- 
ists. Faucher  ended  by  declaring  that  he  wished  coinjiletc 
liberty  in  the  elections  and  he  asked  whether  the  issuing  of 
Bulletins  of  llic  Ri'l^uhlic  had  k-en  cf>nsistcnt  with  such 
liberty. 

Then  Txdru  spoke  again,  lie  began  by  saying  that  the 
minister  of  the  interior  had.  according  to  custom,  tried  ti> 
envenom  the  debate,  but  that  he  himself  would  remain  calm, 
whereupon  a  terrible  ujiroar  arose  during  which  Ix^dru  and  a 
mcmljer  of   the   exircinc  right    indulged   in   n-criminatious. 

^  Discnurs  politiques  2:340-9.  I-<<lru  Ii.tI  requested  pcrinistiun  to  in- 
terpellate the  previous  day.— .Ut7»ii/(-Mr  1316. 


286   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOXD  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [440 

When  order  was  restored,  Ledru  continued.  If  anarchistic 
sentiments  had  been  pronounced  in  pubHc  meetings,  he  said, 
they  were  but  a  reprisal  for  those  uttered  by  a  certain  con- 
servative who  had  declared  that  socialism  must  be  destroyed 
not  refuted.  Denjoy  interrupted :  "  You  would  prefer 
society  to  perish!"  A  bitter  altercation  ensued  in  which 
Denjoy  considered  himself  insulted.  Referring  to  the  legal 
aspect  of  the  matter,  Ledru  compared  Faucher's  circulars 
to  his  subordinates  with  the  law  of  1790  on  which  the  right 
of  interference  was  based,  and  he  expressed  a  doubt  as  to 
whether  the  minister  had  ever  read  the  law.  He  cited  a  law 
of  1789  specifically  denying  the  right  of  police  intervention. 
Ledru  next  began  a  line  of  argument  which  he  claimed  to 
have  taken  from  Maleville;  he  declared  that  an  interpreta- 
tive circular  in  connection  with  the  law  of  1790  had  excepted 
electoral  meetings  from  police  surveillance.  Besides,  he 
added,  the  Constituent  assembly  of  1790  had  blamed  the 
municipality  of  Dax  for  police  intervention.  He  went  over 
the  arguments  again  and  then  summed  them  up.  This  piece 
of  convincing  but  ill-arranged  and  dull  dialectic  was  in- 
terrupted by  a  fist-fight:  a  Montagnard,  Eugene  Raspail, 
had  struck  Point,  a  deputy  of  the  right.  When  the  debate 
was  resumed,  Ledru  declared  that  he  had  practically  finished 
and  would  say  no  more.^ 

Barrot  tried  to  quibble  with  Ledru-Rollin's  arguments. 
The  police,  he  said,  had  a  right  to  attend  political  meetings 
as  citizens.  The  right  to  dissolve  a  meeting  was  not  the 
same  as  the  right  of  surveillance.  The  police  had  to  keep 
order  and  prevent  clubs  from  transforming  themselves  into 
electoral  assemblies.  Barrot  claimed  that  Ledru  had  con- 
fused the  right  of  surveillance  and  the  right  of  prevention. 
His  speech  was  clever  but  sophistical. 

^  Discours  poUtiques  2  :  249-264. 


^l]  EXD  OF  THE  COXSTITUEXT  ASSEMBLY  287 

Ledru-Rollin  replying  maintained  that  Barrot's  argu- 
ments were  the  same  as  those  used  against  him  (Barrot)  in 
the  banquet  campaign  of  1847.  Buffet,  the  minister  of 
commerce,  and  Abbattucci,  a  Bonapartist,  tried  to  confuse 
the  orator  by  interruptions,  but  Ledru  raised  a  laugh  against 
them  by  inviting  them  to  take  the  floor.  (Both  were  poor 
speakers.)  When  the  law  abolishing  clubs  had  been  passed, 
Ledru  continued,  the  Assembly  had  dehnitely  declared  that 
political  meetings  were  excepted.  The  government  had  then 
pointed  out  the  probability  of  the  clubs  changing  themselves 
into  electoral  meetings,  and  still  the  Assembly  had  excepted 
the  latter.  Ledru  repeated  the  arguments  of  his  previous 
speech  and  quoted  Barrot  himself  against  the  tendency  to 
degrade  a  question  like  the  lil>erty  of  elections  to  a  mere 
police  question.  He  ended  by  saying :  '"  The  government 
must  be  ol^eyed  when  it  is  not  arbitrary,  but  when  the  gov- 
ernment violates  the  law,  only  the  right  of  resistance  re- 
mains." ^  This  was  the  first  time  that  Ledru  had  spoken 
openly  of  resistance  to  the  government. 

Barrot  again  took  the  floor.  He  declared  that  I.edru  re- 
produced other  people's  words  to  satiety,  that  Ledru  was 
bold  in  confounding  the  right  of  prevention  and  arbitrary 
prohibition,  that  it  was  time  that  accusations  against  the 
ministry  should  cease  since  they  affected  the  ignorant  masses 
if  not  the  deputies,  that  the  authorities  must  have  the  right 
to  preserve  order.  Barrot  asserted  that  the  single  case  of 
Dax  had  been  cited  against  the  government's  contention 
whereas  many  ca.ses  might  l)e  cited  in  favor  of  it,  but  he  took 
good  care  not  to  specify  any  of  those.  Ixit  tlic  (juestion  be 
submitted  to  the  judiciary,  he  .said.  After  this  weak  reply 
of  Barrr;t,  Ix-dru  jjroposed  an  order  of  the  day  denouncing 
the  intervention  of  (he  police,  but  the  Assembly  passed  to 

'  Disrnurx  (ynlitiqucs  2:2(^-27^. 


288   ^^DR U-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [442 

the  order  of  the  day  pure  and  simple  against  the  opposition 
of  the  entire  left  and  of  a  part  of  the  left  centre. 

The  altercation  between  Den  joy  and  Ledru  resulted  in  a 
duel.  Duels  between  deputies  were  common  in  1848  and 
1849.^  Reports  of  duels  by  Ledru-Rollin  had  been  circu- 
lated "  but  his  affair  with  Denjoy  was  the  only  one  in  which 
the  leader  of  the  Mountain  took  part.  On  April  13  at  five 
in  the  evening  the  opponents  met  near  the  Pont  de  Neuilly. 
It  was  raining  torrents,  but  the  adversaries  were  placed  at 
twenty  paces  with  pistols.  Ledru  fired  and  missed,  but  only 
the  cap  of  Denjoy's  cartridge  exploded.  Ledru-Rollin  in- 
sisted that  his  antagonist  shoot  again,  but  the  latter  re- 
fused. Denjoy  offered  his  hand,  saying  he  had  always  had 
a  high  opinion  of  Ledru-Rollin  personally.  Ledru  replied 
that  no  agreement  was  possible  between  persons  who  held 
such  different  view^s,  but  Denjoy  still  persisted  and  the  two 
shook  hands.  At  the  Assembly  Considerant  was  lecturing 
on  socialism,  and  over  two-hundred  deputies  escaped  to  the 
lobby  to  discuss  the  duel.  When  Denjoy  arrived,  Faucher 
shook  him  effusively  by  the  hand.^ 

The  Mountain  continued  its  attack  on  the  ministry.  The 
Assembly  had  sent  an  expedition  to  Italy  to  prevent  an 
Austrian  attack  on  Rome.     The  troops  had  attacked  the 

^  For  other  duels,  see  Arcay  252. 

^  On  November  9,  1848,  the  Re  for  me  denied  that  Ledru  had  been 
wounded.  On  December  19  the  Resolution  democratiqiie  et  sociale  de- 
nied that  he  had  been  killed  in  a  duel  with  a  fellow-deputy. 

'Gallois  89-90;  Dix  Decemhre,  April  14;  Times,  x\pril  16.  For  offi- 
cial declarations  of  the  seconds,  see  Reforme,  April  14;  National,  April 
15.  Ledru's  seconds  were  two  Montagnards.  Pyat  and  Joly  St.;  Den- 
joy's were  Baraguey  d'Hilliers  and  Laussat,  two  deputies  of  the  ex- 
treme right.  For  clever  satire  see  Lampion,  May.  10.  The  following 
couplet  is  given : 

"€e  grand  represent,  n'etant  qu'un  palloquet, 
Ses  temoins  sont  partis,  mais  pas  son  pistolet." 


443]  EXD  OF  THE  COXSTITUEXT  ASSEMBLY  289 

Roman  republic  and  on  May  7  the  deputies  voted  their  dis- 
approval of  this  attack.  Nevertheless  Louis  Napoleon  con- 
gratulated the  troops  and  the  cabinet  did  not  disavow  this 
action/  Thereupon  on  May  1 1  sixty  members  of  the  Moun- 
tain, including  Ledru,  proposed  the  impeachment  of  the 
president  and  his  ministers."  A  motion  to  send  the  im- 
peachment to  the  bureaus  was  rejected,  the  lefts  mustering 
only  128  votes  against  388,  and  the  subject  was  referred 
to  the  committee  on  justice  where  it  died  a  peaceful  death. 

The  adverse  vote  of  May  7  on  the  Italian  expedition  had 
occurred  on  the  eve  of  the  elections,  and  Ix'on  h^iucher 
telegraphed  to  the  departments  a  list  of  those  who  had  voted 
against  the  government,  advising  the  electors  not  to  vote  for 
these  deputies.  The  Assembly  was  angered  by  this  abuse 
of  power  and  in  an  order  of  the  da)^  the  minister  of  the  in- 
terior was  censured.  Only  Den  joy  and  four  other  members 
of  the  extreme  right  opposed  this  vote  of  lack  of  confidence. 
Of  course  after  this  Faucher  was  obliged  to  resign. 

On  May  22  Changarnier  again  showed  his  insubordina- 
tion. This  was  the  fourth  time  that  this  general  had  mani- 
fested his  contempt  for  the  Assembly.  First  of  all  he  held 
an  illegal  double  command.  Then  011  January  29  he  had 
disregardcfl  the  orders  of  Marrast.  president  of  the  .\s- 
sembly.  Thirdly,  after  the  Assembly  had  manifested  its 
disapproval  of  Louis  Napoleon's  congratulalif>ns  to  the  army 
near  Rome,  Changarnier  had  ])OStcd  these  congratulations 
in  all  the  barrack  rooms  by  military  command.  l*"inally  on 
May  22  when  Marrast  feared  trouble  on  account  of  a  legis- 
lative deafllfK-k  over  Italian  affairs  ''  and  ordered  fleneral 
Forest  to  bring  his  regiments  to  the  Palais  I'otirbon.  Chan- 
garnier wrote  to  his  subordinates  to  obey  no  orders  l)nt  his 

1  For  details,  sec  p.  .^49. 

^  Monilcur  jar  iS.ff^.  p.  17.9);  Ri^fnrmr,  Nf;iy  10. 

"  See  p.  .150. 


ooo   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [444 

own,  and  no  troops  responded  to  Marrast's  command.  The 
deadlock  was  broken,  but  Changamier  had  again  shown  his 
insubordination. 

On  the  next  day,  May  23  Cremieux  interpellated  the  gov- 
ernment on  the  rumors  of  attempts  to  reestablish  the  empire. 
He  told  how  there  was  talk  of  an  agreement  between  Louis 
Napoleon  and  the  northern  monarchs  to  destroy  democracy  in 
Europe  and  also  rumors  of  the  replacement  of  the  honest 
Barrot  cabinet  by  a  Thiers-Bugeaud-Falloux  combination 
which  would  carry  out  a  coup  d'etat.  Considerant  and 
St.  Romme,  another  deputy  of  the  extreme  left,  supported 
these  accusations. 

Ledru  then  obtained  the  floor.  He  asserted  that  the 
events  of  the  previous  day  were  circumstantial  evidence  of  a 
plot.  He  told  how  President  Marrast  had  informed  the 
premier  of  the  deadlock.  Barrot  shouted  a  denial,  but 
Marrast  vouched  for  the  truth  of  this  fact.  Ledru-Rollin 
continued,  waxing  wroth  at  the  denial  of  Barrot.  At  the 
very  time,  he  said,  when  the  troops  should  have  been  ready 
to  obey  the  commands  of  the  officers  of  the  Assembly, 
Changarnier  had  written  to  the  colonels  of  the  army  to  obey 
only  orders  given  by  himself.  "  He  did  well,"  cried  Ouen- 
tin-Bauchart,  whereupon  Anton}"  Thouret,  a  member  of 
the  left,  made  an  angry  retort.  Marrast  had  great  diffi- 
culty in  quieting  these  two  disputants.  Ledru  resumed,  say- 
ing that  if  the  Assembly  required  proof  of  a  plot,  it  should 
name  a  commission  to  interrogate  Changarnier  and  the 
colonels.  He  gave  examples  of  earlier  defiances  of  the 
legislature  by  Louis  Napoleon  and  Changarnier,  and  he  asked 
what  clearer  proof  of  conspiracy  could  be  wanted  than  the 
repeated  disobedience  of  the  general.  He  said  that  the  Mon- 
tagnards  desired  an  investigation  so  that  it  would  be  clear 
to  all  that  if  anyone  were  violating  the  constitution,  it  was 
not  they  but  their  opponents.^ 

^  Discours  poUtiques  2:316-321. 


^_I3]  E^'D  ^P  T^i^  COXSTITUEKT  ASSEMBLY  29 1 

Barrot  asserted  that  the  army  would  never  betray  the 
constitution.  A  member  of  the  extreme  left  supported 
Ledru's  accusations  as  to  the  disobedience  of  Changarnier. 
Michot,  a  Montagnard,  declared  that  certain  soldiers  had 
been  instructed  to  shout :  Three  Cheers  for  the  Emperor; 
Lagrange,  another  Montagnard,  said  that  the  army  was 
loyal  to  France  but  not  to  its  leaders.  Barrot  declared  that 
all  the  charges  were  absurd  and  trivial,  that  not  a  coup 
d'etat  but  an  uprising  was  to  be  feared,  that  Changarnier 
had  written  no  letter  to  the  colonels  as  Ledru  had  stated. 
Here  Ledru  handed  a  copy  of  the  letter  to  President  Marrast, 
and  Barrot  had  to  change  his  line  of  argument.  He  said  that 
Ledru  ought  to  have  given  him  the  letter  earlier,  that  he 
could  not  imagine  when  the  order  to  bring  troops  to  the 
Palais  Bourbon  the  previous  day  could  have  l)een  delivered, 
that  he  was  sure  that  Changarnier  did  not  know  of  the  order 
and  had  not  wilfully  disobeyed  the  Assembly.  Lcdru- 
Rollin  asked  that  the  discussion  he.  postponed  so  that  the 
head  of  the  cabinet  might  have  time  to  learn  the  facts.' 
The  Assembly  agreed  to  continue  the  debate  the  ne.xt  day. 

Accordingly  on  IMay  24  the  subject  was  renewed,  liarrot 
declared  that  General  Changarnier  had  no  intention  of  in- 
.sulting  the  Assembly,  but  his  explanation  of  this  statement 
is  difficult  to  understand.  Considcrant  expressed  his  belief 
that  Barrot  and  Louis  Napoleon  were  honest,  but  that  cnii- 
spirators  existed  who  were  making  use  f>t'  the  president's 
name. 

Then  l-x;dru  spoke  again.  He  showed  how  the  ministry 
was  constantly  shifting  its  line  of  defense.  "  What  is 
the  .sense,"  he  said,  "of  declaring  for  Crcneral  rhangarnicr 
on  five  or  six  occasions:  Yes,  he  actually  violated  the  con- 
stitution, he  issued  commands  in  contravention  of  the  l.iw. 

'  Monitcur  1879. 


292    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [446 

he  disobeyed  the  orders  of  the  Assembly,  he  wished  to  fight 
against  it  in  behalf  of  the  government — all  that  is  true,  but 
his  intentions  are  excellent,  he  profoundly  respects  the  As- 
sembly? "  Ledru  observed  that  it  was  absurd  to  plead  ignor- 
ance of  events  in  Changarnier's  behalf,  that  the  general  could 
not  have  written  his  letter  to  the  colonels  except  to  cancel 
Marrast's  orders,  that  Changarnier  even  thought  the  letter 
so  important  that  he  had  written  it  with  his  own  hand. 
Here  Barrot  interrupted  to  explain  that  Changarnier  had 
not  written  but  had  dictated  the  letter.  Colonel  Charras, 
a  member  of  the  extreme  left,  denied  this,  and  General 
Clement  Thomas  asked  why  Changarnier,  who  had  a  seat 
in  the  legislature,  did  not  explain  matters  himself.  Ledru 
continued,  asking  for  an  investigation  into  the  affair  and 
repeating  his  former  arguments.  Although  an  investiga- 
tion might  prove  merely  that  a  folly  had  been  committed, 
what,  he  asked,  were  Louis  Napoleon's  attempts  to  gain  the 
throne  in  1836  and  in  1840  but  follies?  ^ 

There  had  been  excitement  all  through  Ledru's  speech  but 
nothing  to  equal  the  outburst  of  indignation  at  this  last 
question.  Emile  de  Girardin,  the  influential  free-lance 
journalist,  declared  that  it  was  not  permissible  to  call  the 
elect  of  six  millions  a  fool.  Etienne  Arago  and  Martin 
Bernard  had  an  angry  colloquy  with  Barrot.  The  latter  de- 
clared that  the  president  of  the  republic  could  be  attacked  by 
constitutional  methods,  but  that  it  was  illegal  to  attack  a 
man  who  could  not  answer.  President  Marrast  mildly  re- 
buked Ledru-Rollin  for  the  words  he  had  used. 

Finally  Ledru  resumed.  He  declared  that  his  statement 
was  not  an  insult  but  history.  He  believed  in  the  absolute 
honesty  of  Barrot  and  he  did  not  accuse  the  president  of  the 
republic,  but  there  were  many  conspirators  in  Louis  Napo- 

^  Discours  politiqucs  2  :  322-9. 


447]  E^'D  OF  THE  COXSTITUEXT  ASSEMBLY  293 

Icon's  entourage.  He  said  that  he  did  not  accuse  Barret  of 
dishonesty  or  even  of  inordinate  love  of  power.  "  If  I  had 
to  quaUfy  you,  I  would  never  call  you  a  conspirator ;  I  would 
say  what  has  already  been  said  of  you,  that  you  are  blind." 
Barrot  retorted :  "  I  did  not  know  that  it  was  in  my  destiny 
to  be  treated  as  blind  by  both  M.  Guizot  and  M.  Ledru- 
Rollin."  Ledru-Rollin  concluded,  asserting  tliat  he  did  not 
fear  a  successful  coup  d'etat,  but  that  he  did  fear  a  Bona- 
partist  uprising  and  consequent  bloodshed.^ 

Falloux,  the  legitimist  member  of  the  cabinet,  undertook: 
to  answer  Ledru.  He  maintained  that  there  was  no  urgent 
need  of  a  committee  of  investigation,  that  the  minister  of 
war  could  do  all  the  investigating  necessary.  Since  Teb- 
ruary  24,  he  said,  there  had  been  no  danger  from  Bonapar- 
tist  agents.  It  was  foolish  to  threaten  the  country  with  an 
August  10,  a  Septeml^er  2,  a  May  31,  or  a  tenth  Ther- 
midor.  "  You  stop  before  the  eighteenth  Brumaire," 
shouted  Ledru.  Falloux  continued,  inveighing  against  all 
disturl:)ers  of  the  peace,  and  then  swinging  off  to  the  sub- 
ject of  the  National  workshops. 

On  the  following  day  May  25,  the  debate  was  continueil, 
but  most  of  the  discussion  dealt  with  the  National  Work- 
shops, Falloux's  opinions  on  the  liistory  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  the  opinions  of  the  Monlagnard  Joly  in  1831,  and 
what  Considerant  had  recently  said  to  P>arrot  in  a  conver- 
sation between  the  two.  Ledru-Rollin  had  movcni  the  A\t- 
pointment  of  a  committee  of  investigation,  but  otily  the  left 
and  the  left  centre  su])j)ortcd  him.  and  accordingly  the  As- 
sembly passed  to  the  order  of  the  day  by  a  vole  of  30H  to 
260. 

The  next  day.  May  2C},  was  the  last  of  the  Constituent 
Assembly.     A   final   attempt   at   obtaining  an   amnesty    for 

'  Discours  politique^  2 :  329-333. 


294  LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [448 

political  prisoners  was  lost  by  four  votes,  most  of  the  centre 
abstaining  from  voting.  There  was  a  brief  discussion  in 
which  Ledru  took  part  as  to  the  powers  of  the  officials  of 
the  Assembly  in  the  period  before  the  new  legislature  should 
meet,  but  an  harmonious  agreement  was  reached/  Armand 
Marrast  read  his  president's  address,  and  the  Assembly 
passed  into  history. 

1  Moniteur  1910. 


CHAPTER  XX 

The  Legislative  Assembly 

The  trial  of  Barbes,  Blanqui,  and  the  other  revolutionary 
chiefs  involved  in  the  affair  of  May  15  began  at  P>ourges 
on  March  6,  1849.  Most  of  the  prominent  statesmen  were 
summoned  as  witnesses,  including  the  members  of  the  pro- 
visional government.  On  March  18  Ledru  arrived  in  the 
city.  He  was  feted  by  the  inhabitants  and  in  the  evening 
he  spoke  at  a  banquet  held  in  his  honor.'  During  the  after- 
noon he  had  given  his  evidence;  he  had  shown  a  friendly 
feeling  towards  most  of  the  accused,  but  with  Blanqui  he 
had  quarreled.^  One  of  Ledru's  remarks  attracted  atten- 
tion: "  When  a  revolt  in  behalf  of  the  regency  is  attempted, 
one  does  not  cheer  the  regency.  When  a  revolt  in  behalf 
of  legitimacy  is  attempted,  one  does  not  cheer  legitimacy. 
One  makes  use  of  the  feeling  animating  the  people,  one  de- 
stroys the  existing  administration,  and  by  a  sleight  of  liand 
one  obtains  the  goal  desired."  ''  Beaumont- Vassy,  a  con- 
servative onlooker,  said:  "The  pantomine  with  which  M. 
Ledru-Rollin  accompanied  these  words  impressed  tiicm  on 
the  memory  of  all  present."  * 

^  Revolution  democratiquc  ct  socialf,  Cnnstiluliointt-l,  Nfarch  Ji ; 
Breton,  Boissy  2:  124. 

2  For  evidence,  see  Monitcur  for  iS.fQ.  pp.  947-*,  962;  Reform f.  March 
21,  1849.     For  extracts,  see  pp.  8.1,  121.  126.  139,  15.1-4.  159.  \^). 

^  Reforme,  March  21.  Cf.  Hcamont-Vassy  .4:485;  Breton,  Boissy 
2:126;  Moniteur  947;  Constitutionnel,  March  23. 

*  Beaumont-Vassy  4 :  485. 

449]  295 


2o6   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [450 

The  court  was  unfair  to  the  prisoners  but  not  so  unfair 
as  the  one  that  sat  later  at  Versailles  to  try  Ledru-Rollin 
and  his  friends  on  account  of  the  fiasco  of  June  13.  Finally 
on  April  13  sentence  was  pronounced.  General  Courtais 
was  acquitted.  All  the  other  prisoners  were  found  guilty  of 
sedition,  A  peculiarity  of  the  sentence  was  that  Blanqui,  un- 
doubtedly more  involved  in  the  affair  of  May  1 5  than  Barbes 
or  Raspail  or  Albert,  received  a  lighter  penalty.  Louis  Blanc 
and  Caussidiere  had  escaped  to  England;  the  prosecution 
produced  no  evidence  against  them  but  condemned  them  in 
their  absence.  This  was  the  first  of  these  political  con- 
demnations by  the  judiciary,  with  which  the  government  of 
Louis  Napoleon  was  continually  busy. 

In  another  trial  Ledru-Rollin  acted  as  lawyer  for  the  ac- 
cused. Delescluze  was  prosecuted  for  inciting  to  hatred 
and  for  attacking  the  Constituent  Assembly  in  his  articles 
in  the  Rct'oluHon  deniocratique  et  sociale.  On  March  12, 
1849  the  case  was  tried.  ^  Ledru  deplored  the  revival  of 
animosities  which  had  begun  to  die  out.  He  claimed  that 
it  was  absurd  to  accuse  Delescluze  of  hatred  for  the  re- 
public, as  for  twenty  years  he  had  been  advocating  a  republic. 
He  defended  the  truth  of  Delescluze' s  newspaper  accounts  of 
the  National  Workshops,  of  the  June  Days,  and  of  January 
29,  and  asked  why  republicans  only,  never  royalists,  were 
brought  to  trial.  He  declared  that  attacking  Cavaignac  was 
not  attacking  the  Assembly.  He  maintained  that  it  was 
unjust  to  protest  against  newspaper  discussion  of  the 
June  Days.  He  compared  the  prosecution  with  the  refusal 
of  the  courts  to  hear  cases  of  calumnies  against  conservative 

'  It  had  been  postponed  from  February  13  on  account  of  the  iUness  of 
Ledru-jRollin.  Delescluze  had  told  the  court :  "  The  sickness  of  Citizen 
Ledru-Rollin  is  serious.  For  several  days  he  has  been  spitting  blood 
plentifully.  .  .  .  This  morning  when  I  left  him,  he  was  about  to  be 
bled." — Rez'oluiion  democraiique  et  sociale,  February  14.  On  the  twen- 
tieth Ledru  had  completely  recovered.— /fcjff.,  February  20. 


^^  I  ]  THE  LEG  1  SLA  TI I  '£  A  SSEMBL  Y  297 

newspapers.  The  jury,  however,  brought  in  a  verdict  of 
guilty  on  both  counts,  and  Delesclu2e  was  sentenced  to  a 
year's  imprisonment  and  a  thousand  francs'  fine.^  The 
radical  and  socialist  newspapers  helped  pay  the  fine. 

On  April  10  Delescluze  was  again  condemned,  this  time 
to  three  year's  imprisonment,  1 1 ,000  francs'  fine,  and  costs. 
At  the  same  time,  Darimon,  his  colleague  of  the  Peiiple,  was 
sentenced  to  three  years'  imprisonment  and  a  fine  of  6,000 
francs.  The  Mountain  published  a  letter  declaring  its 
support  of  the  two  newspapers  and  contributing  500  francs 
to  each  journal.  The  Frcsse,  the  National,  the  Rcforme, 
the  Rcpiihliquc,  and  the  Vraic  Rcpubliqiic  declared  their 
moral  solidarity  with  the  condemned  newspapers  and  con- 
tributed towards  the  payment  of  the  fines."  Delescluze 
never  served  his  term,  though  the  reason  for  this  cannot  l)e 
discovered. 

Meanwhile  the  electoral  campaign  was  in  full  swing. 
Early  in  April  the  Mountain  thought  it  necessary  to  issue 
a  declaration  of  principles.  "  We  accept  the  constitution 
even  though  it  does  not  include  the  right  to  labor  or  the 
a1x)lition  of  the  death  penalty;  we  accej)!  it  in  spite  of  its 
imperfections  because  it  is  the  result  of  universal  suffrage 
and  because  it  can  be  revised."  The  work  of  the  Consti- 
tuent Assembly,  the  Mountain  declared,  had  been  illogical 
because  the  monarchists  who  composed  a  large  part  of  it 
were  incapable  of  establishing  a  republican  regime.  The 
time  had  now  arrived  when  the  voters  could  rcjat  those 
deputies  who  had  voted  for  tlic  maintenance  of  the  state  of 
siege,  the  deportation  of  pf)litioal  prisoners,  the  bonding  of 
newspapers,  the  law  against  clubs,  internal  duties  on  meats 

^  Rh-olution  dcmocraliquc  it  socialc,  .March  13;  .\f(>mt,-ur  for  /.SV9, 
p.  827.     For  extract  sec  pp.  I0.V4- 

'Revolution  dniiocratiiiuc  ct  socialc,  April   11,   12. 


298   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [452 

and  wines,  the  eleven-hour  day;  they  could  elect  those  who 
had  voted  for  the  reduction  of  postage  rates,  the  abolition 
of  the  salt  tax,  the  budget,  and  the  preamble  to  the  constitu- 
tion. The  foreign  policy  of  the  Mountain  was  that  all 
nations  should  be  free  and  should  be  given  aid  to  liberate 
themselves  when  they  asked  for  it,  that  France  was  pledged 
to  succor  Poland,  Italy,  Germany,  Hungary.  The  internal 
policy  of  the  Mountain  was  to  improve  the  condition  of  the 
people  and  to  enlighten  them ;  to  follow  up  the  expulsion  of 
the  monarch  with  the  expulsion  of  misery  and  ignorance. 
Property  was  the  basis  of  the  family  and  of  society,  but  that 
involved  the  right  to  labor.  The  state  should  extend  aid, 
that  is  instruments  of  labor,  to  all.  Taxes  should  be  pro- 
gressive. The  size  of  the  army  and  the  length  of  service 
should  be  reduced,  a  reserve  should  be  organized,  and  pen- 
sions should  be  granted.  Education  should  be  free  and  ad- 
ministered by  the  state,  and  the  salaries  of  teachers  ought 
to  be  increased.  The  emacipation  of  the  lower  clergy,  judi- 
cial reform,  state  administration  of  such  natural  monopolies 
as  railroads  and  mines  were  other  items  in  the  program  of 
the  Mountain.  In  the  sphere  of  political  organization  it 
advocated  universal  and  direct  suffrage ;  unity  of  power  and 
division  of  functions;  an  executive  revocable  by  the  legisla- 
ture and  subordinate  to  it.  "  Finally,  all  the  consequences 
of  the  three  great  principles  of  the  revolution ;  that  is,  gov- 
ernment of  all,  by  all,  and  for  all ;  the  republic  one  and  in- 
divisible; the  democratic  and  social  republic."  ^  This  pro- 
clamation is  the  best  summary  of  what  the  radicals  of 
1848-9  advocated.  Half  of  what  they  demanded  has  since 
become  law;  the  other  half  occupies  a  prominent  place  in  the 
programs  of  the  progressive  parties  of  today.  All  these 
ideas  are  reasonable :  none  are  impracticable. 

^Ibid.,  April  5,  1849;  Refonne,  April  6;  Peiiple.  April  7.  The  seven 
most  important  radical  and  socialist  newspapers  and  56  deputies,  in- 
cluding Ledru,  signed  this  declaration. 


453]  ^^^  LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  299 

In  Paris  the  Democratic-Socialist  Committee,  the  electoral 
machine  of  the  Mountain,  met  about  April  25  and  chose 
its  candidates  for  the  new  assembly.  In  the  balloting  the 
first  four  names  and  the  votes  they  received  were  as  follows : 
Pierre  Leroux  179,  Felix  Pyat  177,  Ledru-Rollin  173, 
Greppo  165.'-  There  were  twenty-eight  deputies  to  be 
chosen  for  Paris,  and  the  Democratic-Socialist  Committee 
filled  out  its  list  with  such  names  as  Cabet,  Proudhon, 
Lamennais,  Considerant,  Alton-Shee,  and  two  sergeants  pro- 
minent in  the  democratic  movement  in  the  army.  These 
twenty-eight  candidates  united  in  a  declaration  to  the  effect 
that  the  republic  stood  for  "  the  rejuvenation  of  society 
dying  of  corruption;  the  control  of  the  state  by  the  people; 
liberty,  equality,  and  fraternity."  They  promised  that  with 
the  aid  of  the  people  they  would  save  the  political  and 
social  revolution  in  France  and  in  Europe.* 

The  conservatives,  on  the  other  hand,  drew  up  a  list  of 
candidates  headed  by  Barrot,  Bugeaud,  Cavaignac,  Chan- 
garnier,  Falloux,  Marie,  and  Thiers.^  This  was  a  combina- 
tion of  conservatives,  Bonapartists,  and  the  right  wing  of 
the  moderates.  An  association  called  The  l'>iends  of  the 
Constitution  put  forward  a  list  which  took  from  each  of  the 
others  the  less  extreme  names,  such  as  Lcdru-Uollin  and 
Cavaignac,  and  composed  the  rest  from  the  centre  and  left 
of  the  old  legislature.*  These  were  the  three  pruininent 
lists  in  Paris. 

The  campaign  was  unlike  that  of  April  1848,  which  had 

^Peuple,  Reformc,  Revolution  dcmocratviue  ct  xocuili',  Xational,  Aptil 
26;  Times,  April  27. 

'Revolution  dcmocratiquc  ct  socialc,  .May  9;  I'cuplr.  May  14,  iH4<;. 

'  Constitutionncl,  May  9;  Atelier,  May. 

*  National,  May  7,  1849;  Constitutionncl,  Times,  May  9.  This  list  coji- 
tained  seven  mcmlK-rs  of  the  provisional  government  and  ten  other 
officials  of  that  government  or  of  the  executive  commission. 


,00   LliDRl'-ROLLI\'  .-IXD  SECOXD  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [45^ 

]xxMi  :i  campaign  of  iiulivicluals.  Now  three  distinct  parties 
were  bringing  forward  their  candidates.  On  one  side  were 
the  radicals  and  sociahsts  headed  by  Ledru.  On  the 
other  side  was  the  combination  of  all  types  of  conserva- 
tives :  Bonapartists,  Orleanists,  legitimists,  clericals.  Be- 
tween these  two  and  attracting  little  attention  was  the  great 
parliamentary  group  of  the  left  and  the  centre,  the  moderates 
of  the  provisional  government,  the  supporters  of  Cavaignac. 

Besides  being  a  candidate  in  Paris,  Ledru  also  ran  in  at 
least  fourteen  departments.^ 

The  government  worked  against  Ledru-Rollin.  At  Val- 
enciemies  the  authorities  tried  to  stop  men  from  wearing 
his  picture.  At  Cherbourg  the  prefect  spoke  openly  against 
him.  At  ^Marmande  the  sub-prefect  persecuted  all  officials 
who  supported  him.^ 

"  The  departments  were  full  of  rumors  published  by  the 
anarchists,"  said  an  English  traveler.  "  One  country  paper 
announced  that  Louis  Napoleon  had  been  deposed,  another 
that  Ledru-Rollin  and  Marrast  had  been  appointed  dictators, 
and  another  that  Napoleon  had  proclaimed  himself  em- 
peror." ^ 

The  friends  of  Ledru  thought  that  it  would  be  advisable 
for  him  to  tour  the  provinces.  He  could  not  accept  all  the 
invitations  he  received.     To  Bordeaux  he  sent  a  friend  in 

1  Allien,  Eure,  Gard,  Upper  Garonne,  Gers,  Gironde,  Herault,  Indre, 
North,  Bouches  du  Rhone,  Saone  et  Loire,  Sarthe,  Lower  Seine,  Var^ 
Besides,  his  name  was  proposed  in  Ain,  Aisne,  Creuse,  Mayenne,  and 
Pas  de  Calais,  but  his  name  was  not  on  the  official  socialist  list.  In 
Ardennes,  Eastern  Pyrenees,  and  Somme  Ledru  withdrew  his  name. 
For  Upper  Alps,  He  et  Vilaine,  Landes,  Maine  et  Loire,  and  Tarn  no 
statistics  are  available.  In  the  Sarthe  when  the  departmental  committee 
balloted,  Ledru  came  first  with  801  out  of  820  votes.  — Guyon  151; 
Courier  of  Le  Mans,  April  29,  1849. 

*  Constitutiomiel,  May  29;  Re  forme,  April  14,  March  11. 

*  Senior  i :  133,  May  15,  1849. 


455]  ^^^  LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  301 

his  place.^  There  were  rumors  at  various  times  that  Ledru 
would  visit  the  Midi,  but  he  never  found  time. 

The  citizens  of  Le  Mans  invited  Ledru,  Pyat,  and  Joig- 
neaux  to  a  banquet  in  their  city.  Pyat  refused,  dishking 
a  night  in  the  dihgence,  but  the  other  two  Montagnards  ac- 
cepted. They  set  out  on  April  21.  Ledru  made  a  brief 
speech  on  the  way  at  La  Ferte.^  Early  on  the  following' 
morning  the  two  deputies  reached  Le  Mans,  both  tired.  A 
reception  of  two  hundred  delegates  was  scheduled  for  ten 
o'clock.  "  Ledru  was  not  in  a  state  to  receive  them,"  says 
Joigneaux;  "  he  was  spitting  blood,  which  happened  to  him 
often.  He  told  me  that  he  needed  two  hours  of  absolute  re- 
pose and  that  I  would  oblige  him  by  making  his  excuses." 
Joigneaux  spent  a  pleasant  two  hours.  A  j>easant  asked 
permission  to  shake  Ledru's  hand.  Joigneaux  brought  him 
to  Ledru,  and  Ledru  discovered  that  the  peasant  had  come 
on  foot  over  ten  miles  just  to  shake  his  hand,  and  that  he 
was  obliged  to  return  immediately  to  his  sick  wife. 
"  Hardly  had  the  peasant  left,"  continues  Joigneaux,  "  when 
Ledru,  deeply  affected,  threw  his  arms  around  my  neck, 
leaned  his  head  on  my  shoulder,  and  with  eyes  filled  with 
tears  exclaimed :  Oh,  my  dear  friend,  what  devotion,  what 
a  heart  zve  liave  seen!  Anyone  who  zuould  deceive  him 
must  be  a  great  villain."  Then  Ledru  graciously  received 
the  delegates.^ 

The  rain  was  pouring  when,  a  little  after  noon,  Ledru  set 
out  for  the  banquet.  On  an  island  in  the  Sarthe  several 
thousand  democrats  had  assembled  from  all  the  villages  in 
the  neighborhood.  The  conservatives  had  paid  certain  men 
two  francs  apiece  to  hiss  Ledru.     One  of  them  admitted  this 

'  Reformc,  May  10. 

*  Joigneaux   2:9.     Union   of   Lc   Mans   quoted  in  Dcbats,   April   29; 
Reforme,  April  26. 
^  Joigneaux  2  :  g-12. 


-^02   LEDRV-ROI.LIS  AND  SECOXD  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [436 

to  Joigiieaux,  who  said  to  him:  "Here  are  three  francs ; 
now  be  quiet."  Joigneaiix  spoke  on  progress,  and  various 
local  politicians  made  addresses.^  The  guests  were  pro- 
tected l)v  canvass,  but  the  speaker's  platform  was  in  the 
open  air,  and  for  three  quarters  of  an  hour  Ledru  spoke 
with  the  rain  beating  upon  him.  He  glorified  the  demo- 
cratic idea  and  prophesied  its  eventual  triumph.  He  ex- 
plained his  fiscal  and  foreign  policies.  He  supported  the 
right  to  labor.  He  denied  that  the  Mountain  advocated  aboli- 
tion of  property,  destruction  of  the  church,  or  sanguinary 
measures.  He  said  that  success  was  assured  to  the  people, 
not  by  violence,  but  by  the  peaceful  method  of  the  ballot 
box."  After  this  speech  Ledru  attended  the  meeting  where 
the  candidates  were  selected  and  made  another  brief  ad- 
dress. The  crowd  escorted  him  back  to  his  hotel  and  stood 
under  his  window  cheering  him.  Joigneaux  says :  "  Ledru 
did  not  like  these  demonstrations  and  told  me  the  pain  he 
felt  at  this  crowd  insisting  on  standing  under  his  w'indow 
in  spite  of  the  pouring  rain."  Accordingly  the  two  deputies 
caused  the  rumor  to  be  spread  abroad  that  they  had  de- 
parted, and  the  crow^d  dispersed.'^ 

Ledru  and  Joigneaux  received  no  one  during  the  evening* 
as  both  needed  rest.  The  latter  relates :  "  I  had  a  fever  and 
Ledru  was  more  worried  than  was  necessary.  He  made  me 
leave  the  door  between  our  rooms  open,  and  five  or  six: 
times  during  the  night  he  rose  to  inquire  how  I  was.  I 
had  great  difficulty  in  reassuring  him.  He  hardly  slept 
that  night  in  spite  of  his  need  of  rest."  At  five  the  next 
morning  the  two  deputies  left  the  city  quietly.     They  took 

'Joigneaux  2:11-15.  See  also  Revolution  democratique  et  sociale, 
April  26;  Reforme,  Times,  April  28;  Dehats,  April  29;  Courier  of  Le 
Mans,  April  25. 

*  Reforme,  April  27;  Revolution  democratique  ct  sociale,  April  30. 

*  Joigneaux  2 :  15-16. 


457]  THE  LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  303 

a  carriage  and  reached  Tours  without  being  recognized. 
There  they  took  a  train  for  Paris/ 

Another  city  visited  by  Ledru  during  the  campaign  was 
Chateauroux.^  He  went  via  Bourges  and  Issoudun,  and 
while  the  train  stopped  at  the  latter  station,  he  addressed  a 
few  hundred  people  gathered  there. ^  At  half  past  five 
o'clock  on  April  28  he  arrived  at  Chateauroux  accompanied 
by  three  deputies  of  the  extreme  left.  He  was  received  by 
a  committee  and  walked  to  his  hotel  through  cheering' 
crowds.*  He  took  dinner  with  twenty  five  delegates  of  the 
cantons  and  afterwards  received  a  group  of  workingmen. 
He  retired  early. 

The  next  day  a  thousand  pounds  of  bread  were  distributed 
to  the  poor  by  the  democratic-socialist  party.  In  the  after- 
noon Ledru  started  out  for  the  banquet  hall,  accompanied  by 
forty  committee-men  and  by  twelve  young  girls  dressed  in 
white  with  red  sashes.  One  of  these  girls  presented  Ledru 
with  a  bouquet;  he  thanked  her,  speaking  of  the  interest  of 
the  Mountain  in  the  lot  of  working  girls.  At  the  banquet 
his  fellow  deputies  and  local  celebrities  made  speeches.^ 
Ledru  himself  toasted  the  democratic  and  social  republic; 
he  explained  the  policies  of  the  Mountain. ° 


1 


^  Ibid.,  2:  16-18;  Journal  de  I'Indre  et  Loire,  April  25. 
*For  acceptance,  see  Journal  de  I'Indre,  April  25;  Republique  de  1848 
of  Bourges,  April  27. 
^  Droit  Comntun  of  Bourges,  May  i. 

*  Revolution  deniocratique  et  sociale,  May  3;  Journal  de  I'Indre,  May 

1,  2.  The  conservative  papers  claim  the  reception  was  chilling:  Times, 
May  3;  Constitutionnel  of  Chateauroux  quoted  by  Debats,  May  2; 
Representant  de  I'Indre,  May  2. 

*  Revolution  deniocratique  et  sociale,  May  3 ;  Journal  de  I'Indre,  May 

2.  The  conservative  accounts  try  to  make  the  affair  as  ludicrous  as 
possible  with  the  damsels  munching  gingerbread  and  forgetting  to  ap- 
plaud when  the  signal  was  given. 

*  Journal  de  I'Indre,  May  2. 


.04    LEDKU-ROLLl.W  AXD  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [458 

At  seven  o'clock  that  evening  he  left  Chateauroux.  He 
stopjx^d  off  at  Issoudun  to  make  a  second  address  there. 
Late  at  night  he  arrived  at  Bourges  and  was  again  forced 
to  speak.  The  next  morning  he  left  for  Moulins/  So 
far  his  trip  had  been  a  great  success,"  but  it  was  to  end 
with  some  unfortunate  occurrences. 

Ledru-Rollin  reached  Moulins  in  the  evening  of  April 
30  and  was  accompanied  by  a  crowd  of  several  thousand 
citizens  from  the  barrier  to  the  house  of  the  Montagnard 
Mathe,  where  he  was  to  lodge.  ^  The  next  day  a  banquet 
of  five  thousand  radicals  and  socialists  took  place  in  a  closed 
garden.  On  a  boulevard  from  which  this  garden  could  be 
overlooked  conservatives  had  collected  to  hiss  the  orators  and 
drown  their  speeches.  Nevertheless  the  banquet  passed  off 
smoothly.  Ledru  enunciated  the  principles  of  his  party,* 
and  other  orators  gave  voice  to  their  opinions.  The  ban- 
queters intended  to  march  out  from  the  garden,  but  they 
were  attacked  by  the  conservatives  on  the  boulevard.  Ledru 
and  his  friends  restrained  their  followers  and  a  violent  col- 
lision was  avoided.  The  moderate  newspaper,  the  Con- 
stitution observed :  "  A  quarrel  arose  between  those  leaving 

^Revolution  deviocratique  ct  sociale,  May  3;  Droit  Commun  of 
Bourges,  May  i ;  Rcpuhliquc  de  184S  of  Bourges,  May  2. 

*  See  Spuller  249,  and  for  the  attitude  of  a  conservative,  see  Breton, 
Boissy  2:  131. 

*  Throughout  the  account  of  the  occurrences  at  Le  Mans,  the  narrative 
of  Ledru  in  Disconrs  politiqucs  2 :  292-6  is  closely  followed.  It  is  con- 
firmed by  the  account  in  ^fauve  68-74  and  by  the  testimony  at  the  Riom 
trial  which  followed  these  events;  also  by  the  radical  Repuhlicain  de 
I'Allier  quoted  in  the  Revolution  democratique  et  sociale,  May  3,  and 
by  the  moderate  Constitution  de  I'Allier  quoted  in  the  Peuple,  May  S. 
The  conservative  papers,  the  Memorial  de  I'Allier  and  the  Echo  de 
I'Allier,  differ  somewhat;  they  insist  that  Moulins  was  hostile  to  the 
radicals  and  that  the  faction  of  Ledru  started  each  of  the  disturbances. 

*For  speech,  see  Repuhlicain.  The  conservative  newspapers  falsely 
claimed  that  the  speech  was  incendiary,  an  appeal  against  the  priests 
and  the  rich. 


459]  ^^^  LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  305 

the  garden  and  the  crowd  outside ;  the  provocation  evidently 
came  from  the  latter.  Fortunately  the  restraining  influence 
of  the  republican  leaders  at  the  banquet  prevented  any 
serious  disorder." 

The  banqueters  reconducted  Ledru  to  Mathe's  house. 
The  prefect  of  the  department  had  had  the  rap  pel  beaten, 
and  the  National  Guard  prevented  any  further  disorder. 
Ledru  remained  at  Mathe's  from  four  o'clock  until  seven, 
and  the  city  seemed  to  have  quieted  down  during  this  time. 
Accordingly  the  prefect  dismissed  the  National  Guard. 

In  order  to  avoid  any  occasion  for  a  demonstration  and 
a  riot,  Ledru  advanced  the  hour  of  his  departure.  He  left 
in  a  carriage  with  Mathe  and  four  other  friends.  Unfor- 
tunately some  workingmen  recognized  the  leader  of  the 
Mountain  and  cheered  him.  Ledru  induced  them  to  with- 
draw, but  not  before  the  crowd  in  the  chief  square  had 
become  aware  of  his  presence.  This  crowd  was  composed 
of  conservatives  and  was  led  by  members  of  the  National 
Guard.  Ledru's  carriage  was  stopped  and  its  inmates  were 
threatened  by  swords,  rifles,  and  bayonets.  The  glass  win- 
dows were  shattered  by  stones.  Bayonets  were  thrust 
through  the  rear  of  the  carriage.  A  sabre  blow  was  directed 
at  Ledru,  which  he  parried  with  his  cloak.  Mathe  threw 
himself  in  front  of  his  leader  to  prevent  a  repetition  of  this 
danger.  The  brutality  of  the  assailants  saved  the  day,  for 
one  of  them  struck  the  postilion  with  a  violent  blow  on 
the  hands;  the  horses  felt  the  reins  quiver  and  started  off 
like  lightning.  Ledru  and  his  friends  were  quickly  carried 
beyond  the  pale  of  danger,^     The  night  was  peaceful  at 

1  Ledru,  Mauve,  the  Republicain,  and  the  Constitution  all  claim  that 
the  attack  was  premeditated.  The  prosecution  at  iRiom  admitted  the 
attack,  but  claimed  that  it  was  not  premeditated  and  that  Ledru's  death 
was  not  desired.  The  Memorial  and  the  Echo  belittled  the  violence, 
denied  premeditation,  and  claimed  that  the  riot  was  suppressed  by  offi- 
cers of  the  National  Guard. 


:.0(S  LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [460 

Moulins  while  Ledru  and  Mathe  sped  on  to  Paris,  making- 
no  stop  at  Bourges  where  they  caught  a  train. 

On  May  2  the  Constituent  Assembly  was  in  session  when 
Ledru  and  Mathe  rushed  in.  Ledru  was  given  the  floor  im- 
mediately. He  related  his  adventures  and  declared  that  the 
insult  of  Moulins  concerned  the  entire  Assembly  as  some  of 
its  members  had  been  attacked.  He  feared  reprisals  and 
hoped  the  Assembly  would  order  an  immediate  investigation 
and  the  trial  of  those  who  had  assailed  him.  As  a  jury 
in  the  department  of  the  Allier  would  be  prejudiced  in  favor 
of  the  National  Guard,  he  asked  that  the  trial  take  place 
elsewhere.  Ledru  declared  that  he  himself  believed  that 
the  affair  was  the  work  of  a  few  conspirators.^  Barrot  re- 
plied that  in  spite  of  differences  with  Ledru-Rollin  he  deeply 
felt  the  insult,  that  violence  led  to  violence  and  must  be 
punished,  that  the  Assembly  might  rely  on  the  government 
to  order  a  judicial  investigation  immediately. 

Mathe  presented  a  formal  demand  that  the  trial  should 
not  take  place  in  Moulins;  he  added  that  a  royalist  agent 
had  tried  to  stir  up  trouble  at  Sangoins,  but  that  fortunately 
he  and  Ledru  had  not  passed  through  that  town.^  A  pre- 
liminary report  of  the  attorney-general  maintained  that 
there  was  provocation  at  the  banquet,  that  there  was  no  pre- 
meditation in  the  attack.^  The  government  transferred  the 
trial  to  Riom  in  the  department  of  Puy  de  Dome.  Fourteen 
individuals  were  arrested,  but  all  but  three  were  released 
before  the  trial  began  on  August  19.  The  prosecution 
proved  the  attack,  and  apparently  identified  the  accused  as 
assailants,  but  it  showed  no  energy  in  its  arraignment  and 
claimed  that  the  attack  was  unpremeditated.     The  defense 

'  Discours  politiques  2:  292-8. 

*  National,  May  7,  1849 ;  Peuple,  May  9. 

^Archives  Nationales  BB30-361,  quoted  Lebey,  Ministere  304. 


461]  THE  LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  307 

asserted  that  the  members  of  the  National  Guard  were  the 
defenders  of  the  peace  against  agitators.  The  three 
prisoners  were  acquitted.^  This  trial  took  place  after  the 
pseudo-uprising  of  June  13  and  the  flight  of  Ledru-RoUin, 
and  the  government  was  not  anxious  to  convict  those  who 
had  attacked  one  of  its  enemies,  no  matter  how  unjust  the 
attack. 

On  May  13  the  elections  to  the  Legislative  Assembly  took 
place  quietly.  Everywhere  the  moderates  were  defeated. 
Besides  Ledru,  only  Cremieux  of  all  the  provisional  gov- 
erment  was  returned;  the  others  with  most  of  the  former 
moderate  ministers  suffered  defeat.  The  conservatives  ob- 
tained an  overwhelming  majority,  but  the  democratic-social- 
ist ticket  was  successful  in  many  departments.  In  Paris  the 
outcome  was  a  mixed  one.  A  Bonapartist  came  first,  then 
Ledru-Rollin.  Nine  others  from  the  socialist  ticket  were 
returned  among  the  twenty-eight  deputies  from  Paris. 
Ledru  was  elected  in  five  departments;  in  the  other  nine  in 
which  he  ran  he  was  defeated.  However,  it  was  a  splendid 
tribute  to  receive  a  fivefold  election;  no  one  else  was  re- 
turned by  more  than  three  constituencies.  The  people  of 
Allier,  the  department  in  which  Ledru  had  been  attacked 
showed  their  sympathy  for  Ledru.  Seventy- four  officers 
and  soldiers  resigned  from  the  National  Guard,^  and  the  de- 
partment returned  the  entire  radical-socialist  ticket.  Ledru's 
total  vote  was  about  half  a  million,  more  than  he  had  received 
for  president. 

1  The  Courier  dc  la  Limogne,  August  26,  and  the  Gazette  dcs  Tribu- 
naux,  August  28,  both  give  incomplete  stenographic  reports.  Mauve 
91-3  gives  an  excellent  secondary  account. 

^  Mauve  71 ;  Peuple,  May  9,  1849. 


3o8  LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [462 

Number 

Department  of  votes 

Seine   129,459 

Saone  ct  Loire 75.510 

Allier    40,407 

Herault    31,202 

Var    27,751 

Lower  Seine  39.837 

Sarthe   39,127  — 

Gironde    33,045  — 

Upper  Garonne    30,622  — 

Bouches  du  Rhone  25,266  13th 

Eure    11,131  — 

Gers   10,099  — 


Place 

Number  of 

in  list 

deputies  elected 

2nd 

28 

1st 

12 

5th 

7 

8th 

8 

3rd 

7 

i8th 

16 

Total    492,556  * 

In  the  Legislative  Assembly  which  had  just  been  elected 
parties  were  clearly  defined.  The  conservatives  formed  a 
solid  phalanx,  the  Mountain  another.  The  independent 
members  of  the  extreme  left  always  and  the  left  usually 
acted  with  the  Mountain.  The  left  centre  headed  by  Cav- 
aignac  swayed  between  the  left  and  the  right.  The  relative 
strength  of  the  three  groups  was  shown  in  the  vote  for  pre- 
sident on  June  i : 

Dupin,  candidate  of  the  right  336 

Ledru-Rollin,  candidate  of  the  lefts 182 

Lamoriciere,  candidate  of  the  left  center  76 

Scattered    11  f 

The  left  was  probably  divided  as  follows  : 

*  This  total  does  not  include  Gard,  Indre,  and  North,  nor  the  depart- 
ments where  Ledru  may  have  had  a  few  scattered  votes.  In  Indre, 
where  nine  deputies  were  elected,  Ledru-Rollin  was  tenth  on  the  list. 

t  All  the  other  candidates  of  the  left  were  also  defeated.  For  Mon- 
tagnard  candidates,  see  Debats,  May  30.  On  May  29  Ledru-Rollin  was 
defeated  for  the  chairmanship  of  the  first  bureau;  he  received  only  9 
out  of  24  votes. — Ibid.,  May  30. 


463]  THE  LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  309 

Undoubted  members  of  the  Mountain  129 

Doubtful  members  of  the  Mountain  27 

Independent  members  of  the  extreme  left 19 

Total  members  of  the  extreme  left 175 

Total  members  of  the  left  proper 45 

Doubtful  members  of  the  left 6 

Total  members  of  the  combined  lefts 226  * 

Thus  almost  one  third  of  the  legislature  of  750  belonged 
to  the  lefts.  So  strict  were  party  lines  than  on  votes  as 
to  the  verification  of  powers  only  thirty-one  members  of  the 
assembly  switched  from  the  majority  or  vice  versa. 

Ledru-Rollin  was  the  undoubted  leader  of  the  Mountain. 
There  was  no  one  else  in  the  party  who  was  nearly  as  pro- 
minent, no  one  else  who  could  compare  with  him  as  an 
orator.  It  was  to  him  that  the  new  members  looked  for 
advice.^  Before  the  Legislative  Assembly  opened,  the  new 
members  had  gathered  at  the  club  in  the  Rue  de  Hasard  and 
had  listened  to  the  debates."  This  was  an  exception  to  the 
rules  of  the  club,  for  ordinarily  all  persons  who  were  not 
deputies  were  strictly  excluded  except  the  paid  secretary. 
During  the  Constituent  Assembly  the  caucus  system  had 

*  The  undoubted  members  of  the  Mountain  were  the  signers  of  the 
appeal  to  German  democracy,  those  who  had  belonged  to  the  Mountain 
in  the  Constituent  Assembly,  or  those  included  in  a  list  in  the  Re- 
forme,  August  15.  The  doubtful  members  of  the  Mountain  are  those 
additional  deputies  whose  names  were  appended  to  the  poster  of  June 
13,  and  four  deputies  absent  in  May  and  June.  The  independent  mem- 
bers of  the  extreme  left  are  additional  deputies  who  signed  the  im- 
peachment of  the  ministry.  The  left  proper  are  those  who  voted  with 
the  extreme  left  on  votes  as  to  verifications  of  power.  The  doubtful 
members  of  the  left  are  those  who  changed  sides  more  than  once  on 
these  votes.  For  later  membership  of  the  extreme  left,  see  Durand- 
Savoyat  manuscripts  at  Library  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  ms.  1440. 

*  Nadaud  329  wrote  a  special  letter  requesting  an  interview, 

*  Commissaire  i :  224. 


>lO   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [464 

Ik'cii  used,  but  early  in  June  this  was  abolished  at  the 
suggestion  of  Michel  de  Bourges,  and  each  deputy  remained 
free  after  the  Alountain  had  voted  on  any  question/  Be- 
sides Ledru  the  most  prominent  members  of  the  Mountain 
were  Michel  de  Bourges,  the  leader  of  the  party  of  action; 
the  fiery  Felix  Pyat,  ever  ready  to  fight;  Martin  Bernard, 
the  former  leader  of  secret  societies,  now  grown  less  ex- 
treme; Considerant,  socialist  editor  of  the  Democratic  paci- 
tique,  opponent  of  all  violent  precedure;  Lamennais,  whose 
liberal  religious  views  had  caused  him  to  adopt  radical 
political  opinions,  but  who  opposed  appeals  to  force;  De- 
ville,  who  usually  acted  as  chairman;  Gambon,  who  attended 
to  the  business  of  the  club;  Pierre  Leroux,  the  pacifist- 
socialist.  Certain  Montagnards,  like  Michel  and  Pyat,  were 
for  violent  action;  others  like  Considerant  and  Lamennais 
opposed  any  appeal  to  arms.  Between  these  two  groups 
were  Bernard,  and  the  great  mass  of  deputies,  all  undecided 
and  looking  to  Ledru-Rollin  to  declare  whether  an  uprising* 
was  necessary. 

The  Mountain  was  proud  of  the  size  of  the  minority  in 
the  Legislative  Assembly.  The  Presse  of  Emile  de  Girardin 
even  suggested  that  Louis  Napoleon  form  a  red  cabinet  under 
Ledru."  The  Emancipation  of  Toulouse  advocated  the  dic- 
tatorship of  Ledru-Rollin.^  Caussidiere  wrote:  "Ledru- 
Rollin  is  one  of  the  most  progressive  representatives  of 
February.  He  rallies  about  him  a  section  of  the  bourgeoisie 
whose  tendencies  are  not  sufficiently  revolutionary  but  who 

1  St.  Ferreol,  Memoires  2:161,  187-8.  Prosecution  at  trial  of  Ledru, 
Moniteur  3100;  Laulerie,  the  paid  secretary,  in  ibid.,  3208-9,  3220.  On 
May  27  officers  of  the  Mountain  were  chosen.  Ledru,  Baune,  Deville 
and  Lamennais  were  elected  presidents.  —  Refornie,  May  29;  Debats, 
May  30. 

*  Revolution  democratique  et  sociale,  May  23,  which  was  disgusted  at 
the  idea,  as  it  wished  no  compromise  with  the  prince-president. 
'  Vraie  Republique,  June  6. 


465]  THE  LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  31I 

frankly  accept  all  the  consequences  of  socialism.  Elected 
anew  by  the  people,  Ledru-RoUin  owes  to  it  all  his  hopes 
and  the  most  absolute  devotion,  for  it  has  forgotten  the 
official  to  remember  only  the  eloquent  tribune  whose 
sympathies  are  truly  popular.  Ledru-Rollin  must  now  adopt 
a  vigorous  policy;  better  surrounded  than  in  the  past,  the 
great  artist  must  be  more  persistent  and  obtain  a  practical 
result  in  the  matters  with  which  he  concerns  himself.  That 
is  what  his  friends  desire  from  the  foremost  orator  of 
the  legislature."^ 

Except  for  interpellations  on  Italian  affairs,  there  oc- 
curred but  one  important  debate  in  the  Legislative  Assembly 
during  its  first  week's  sittings.  On  May  30,  during  the 
third  session,  Keratry  of  the  extreme  right  was  presiding 
as  the  oldest  member  of  the  Assembly.  Chavoix,  an  inde- 
pendent member  of  the  extreme  left,  interpellated  the  min- 
istry on  the  removal  of  the  officers  apointed  by  the  pre- 
vious legislature  to  defend  the  Palais  Bourbon.  Lacrosse, 
who  had  succeeded  Faucher  as  minister  of  the  interior,  made 
a  weak  explanation.  Chavoix  returned  to  the  attack.  A 
tumult  arose.  When  it  had  quieted  down.  President  Keratry 
explained  that  he  had  authorized  the  change  of  officials  in 
writing.  Ledru  at  last  obtained  the  floor.  "  Chavoix? 
had  merely  skimmed  the  surface  of  the  question,"  says 
Quentin-Bauchart ;  "  Ledru-Rollin  plumbed  its  depths."  " 

Ledru-Rollin  admitted  that  organization  was  the  first  duty 
of  the  Assembly,  but  he  declared  that  even  before  that  it 
must  learn  whether  it  had  the  right  to  exist.  He  told  how* 
the  orders  of  the  Constituent  Assembly  had  been  disobeyed 
repeatedly,  how  twenty- four  hours  before  the  Legislative 
Assembly  met,  the  officers  had  been  transferred  whereas  only 

^  Letter  in  ibid.,  June  7. 
^  Quentin-Bauchart  i :  258. 


.  I  J    LllDRU-ROLUN  AXD  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [466 

the  presidcMit  of  the  legislature  had  the  right  to  change  those 
(.>rticials.  how  President  Alarrast  had  protested  to  the  min- 
istry- and  had  forced  General  Changarnier  to  delay  the  re- 
moval. "  Thus,"  Ledru  said,  "  you  see  that  it  was  a  most 
tlngrant  violation  of  the  orders  and  wishes  of  the  Assembly 
....  Vou  cannot  overlook  the  question  without  being  un- 
fair to  yourselves;  you  cannot  overlook  the  question  with- 
out violating  your  own  law  of  sovereignty,  without  your 
own  room  being  violated  against  your  orders." 

Giairman  Keratry  here  interrupted  the  orator  to  say: 
"  It  is  not  we  who  violate  the  rights  of  the  Assembly,  but 
you  and  your  friends."  This  remark  was  delivered  in  a 
low  voice,  loud  enough  to  be  heard  in  the  tribune  though 
not  in  the  body  of  the  hall.  Ledru  in  his  loud  voice  told 
Keratry  that  he  (Keratry)  did  not  have  the  floor;  thereupon 
the  right  got  angry.  Ledru  told  the  deputies  what  Keratry's 
remark  was.  The  president  repeated  it.  Ledru  asserted 
that  he  had  been  insulted  by  the  president,  that  the  tribune 
was  not  free,  that  he  would  not  reenter  it  as  long  as  Keratry 
was  in  the  chair.  The  left  exploded  with  wrath.  Barrot 
rose  to  calm  it,  but  members  of  the  extreme  left  drowned  his 
voice  with  demands  for  an  apology.  The  six  youngest 
members  of  the  Assembly  were  acting  as  secretaries,  and 
four  of  them  who  were  Montagnards  resigned  in  protest  and 
were  replaced  by  the  next  youngest.  Barrot  admits :  "  The 
fault  of  the  president  was  so  evident  that  it  was  difficult  for 
the  majority  to  uphold  him.  The  disorder  was  at  its  height. 
I  mounted  the  tribune  and  urged  M.  Keratry  to  withdraw 
his  remark."  '  Accordingly  Keratry  finally  mumbled :  "  I 
am  sorry  to  have  excited  such  a  tumult.  ...  If  M.  Ledru- 
Rollin  heard  words  displeasing  to  him,  I  am  sorry."  Ledru 
said  that  he  understood  the  president  had  withdrawn  his  re- 

1  Barrot  3:285-6.  Here  for  once  he  is  more  just  than  Quentin- 
Bauchart  i :  258-9,  who  justifies  Keratry. 


^^y]  THE  LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  313 

mark  (Keratty  did  not  deny  this)  and  that  he  was  satisfied. 

The  trouble  should  have  been  over  now,  but  the  confusion 
as  to  the  secretaries  had  to  be  adjusted.  The  four  Mon- 
tagnards  went  to  resume  their  places,  but  the  new  officials 
refused  to  vacate  their  positions.  The  tumult  raged  as 
fiercely  as  ever.  Ledru  pleaded  that  the  incident  be  closed 
by  the  restoration  of  the  old  order,  that  an  act  of  justice  be 
done  by  permitting  those  to  return  to  their  posts  who  had 
resigned  only  because  they  thought  him  insulted.  Then  a 
remarkable  thing  happened.  Bugeaud,  the  arch-conserva- 
tive general — ^Bugeaud,  the  most  bitter  opponent  of  all 
liberals,  entered  the  tribune;  he  hoped  that  "  he  would  often 
agree  with  M.  Ledru-Rollin  or  rather  Citizen  Ledru-RoUin." 
Majorities,  he  said,  more  than  minorities  needed  to  practice 
moderation.  Thereupon  the  entire  left  applauded  one  of  its 
chief  adversaries,  and  the  Assembly  ordered  the  original 
secretaries  to  resume  their  posts. 

Ledru  now  continued  his  interrupted  address.  He  en- 
umerated the  protests  of  the  Constituent  Assembly  against 
Changarnier's  double  command  and  also  the  general's  re- 
peated refusals  to  obey  Marrast's  orders.  Now,  he  said,  the 
command  of  the  forces  of  the  legislature  was  given  to  that 
very  General  Forest  who  had  a  week  earlier  disobeyed  Pre- 
sident Marrast.^  As  to  the  ratification  of  the  appointment 
by  Keratry,  that  was  given  on  May  30  whereas  the  change 
was  made  on  May  28 ;  thus  Keratry  had  not  authorized  the 
transfer,  he  had  merely  agreed  by  complacency  to  an  illegal 
act.  Ledru  ended  by  demanding  an  inquiry  into  the  sub- 
ject.* 

Barrot,  as  usual,  made  the  best  defense  possible.  He  as- 
serted that  he  had  insisted  on  the  retention  of  those  excellent 

1  See  page  289. 
^Moniteur  1941-3. 


T^  I  ^   LEDRU-ROLUS  AXD  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [468 

olTicers  who  guarded  the  Palais  Bourbon,  until  the  president 
of  the  new  Assembly  could  sanction  the  transfer,  that  the 
whole  question  was  whether  Keratry  ratified  the  change  or 
merely  agreed  to  it,  that  he  was  willing  to  have  an  inquiry 
on  that  point.  But  the  partisan  Assembly,  ready  to  uphold 
the  ministry  right  or  wrong  against  the  left,  passed  to  the 
order  of  the  day. 

There  were  too  many  interruptions  to  make  Ledru's 
speech  remarkable,  but  in  the  eyes  of  history  the  honors  of 
the  day  should  go  to  the  left.  The  insult  of  Keratry,  the 
attempt  to  change  officials  during  the  forty-eight  hours  when 
there  was  no  legislature,  the  appointment  of  Forest  known 
to  be  more  friendly  to  Changamier  than  to  the  body  he 
was  to  defend,  all  were  striking  evidences  of  the  contempt 
for  justice  and  legality  of  the  government  of  Louis  Napoleon 
and  of  the  party  for  which  Odilon  Barrot  was  the  continual 
apologist. 


CHAPTER  XXI  ; 

Italian  Affairs 

Ledru  Rollings  connection  with  foreign  affairs  is  so  im- 
portant that  it  is  best  treated  separately;  it  has  therefore 
been  omitted  from  the  account  of  his  parhamentary  career. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  under  the  provisional  govern- 
ment there  was  a  slight  difference  in  policy  between  the 
radicals  and  the  moderates.  Both  were  friendly  to  the  cause 
of  republicanism  in  Italy  and  elsewhere,  but  Lamartine  de- 
sired to  wait  until  the  help  of  France  was  asked  before  send- 
ing troops  against  the  reactionary  monarchs  whereas  Ledru 
wished  to  send  troops  without  awaiting  a  formal  request. 
Lamartine  issued  a  manifesto  expressing  his  views. 

The  executive  commission  continued  the  foreign  policy 
of  Lamartine,  and  on  May  24,  1848  the  Constituent  As- 
sembly expressed  its  approval  in  an  order  of  the  day :  "  The 
National  Assembly  invites  the  executive  commission  to  con- 
tinue to  follow  the  wishes  of  the  Assembly  summed  up  as 
follows :  a  fraternal  pact  with  Germany,  the  reconstruction 
of  a  free  and  independent  Poland,  the  liberation  of  Italy." 

The  February  RIevolution  in  Paris  had  set  the  spark  to 
revolutions  all  over  central  Europe.  In  Germany  a  liberal 
parliament  composed  of  delegates  from  all  the  German  states 
met  at  Frankfort;  in  the  Hapslmrg  dominions  the  various 
nationalities  revolted;  in  Italy  the  minor  states  forced  their 
rulers  to  grant  liberal  constitutions.  The  Austrians  had 
been  expelled  from  Lombardy-Venetia  with  the  exception 
of  the  famous  quadrilateral  where  General  Radetzky  was 
469]  31S 


.JO   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AXD  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [4^0 

l)eing  besieged  by  the  troops  of  the  King  of  Sardinia  and 
by  small  auxiliary  forces  from  the  other  states  of  Italy. 
The  policy  of  the  executive  commission  was  to  send  an  army 
to  Italy  only  at  the  request  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  penin- 
sula, but  Italy's  slogan  in  1848  was  Italia  fara  da  se,  and  no 
request  came.  Bixio,  the  French  minister  at  Turin  warned 
his  government  that  even  a  friendly  army  would  be  badly 
received.  Nevertheless  Ledru  wished  to  send  some  troops, 
and  he  won  Lamartine  over  to  this  policy.  Frangois  Arago 
was  strongly  opposed,  and  persuaded  his  colleagues  to  await 
a  formal  request.^  Perhaps  the  executive  commission 
modified  its  decision,  for  Ledru-Rollin  claimed  in  a  speech 
of  the  following  year  that  "  a  fraternal  entrance  under  the 
name  of  sequestration  into  the  County  of  Nice  and  the  states 
of  Savoy  "  had  been  decided  upon,  and  that  only  the  fall 
of  the  executive  commission  had  prevented  orders  being 
sent  to  the  Army  of  the  Alps  to  enter  the  Piedmontese 
dominions." 

By  the  end  of  September  1848  reaction  had  commenced 
throughout  southern  and  central  Europe  as  well  as  in  France. 
The  Frankfort  Parliament  had  been  unable  to  work  its  will 
in  Schleswig-Holstein  where  Russia  had  intervened;  Austria 
had  quelled  the  insurrection  in  Bohemia;  General  Radetzky 
had  inflicted  a  crushing  defeat  at  Custozza  on  the  combined 
forces  of  Sardinia  and  of  the  revolting  provinces  of  Lom- 
bardy-Venetia.  ^Meanwhile  the  government  of  Cavaignac 
in  France  had  offered  mediation  and  had  done  nothing. 

On  September  29  the  ]Montagnard  Buvignier  asked  leave 
to  interpellate  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs.  Lamoriciere, 
minister  of  war,  tried  to  show  that  an  interpellation  was 
inopportune.     Ledru-Rollin  spoke  next. 

'  Speech  of  March  30,  1849,  in  Discours  politiques  2 :  226-7. 
*  Gamier-Pages  10:5-9. 


47 1  ]  ITALIAN  AFFAIRS  317 

There  has  been  a  decided  deviation,  [he  said,]  from  the 
foreign  poHcy  of  the  provisional  government.  .  ,  .  That  de- 
viation should  receive  our  serious  attention  ....  and  we 
must  know  what  is  the  policy  of  the  government,  and  whether 
it  is  one  we  are  likely  to  regret.  .  .  .  We  are  told:  the  ques- 
tion is  pending.  Oh,  how  I  have  suffered  from  hearing  such 
language ;  I  have  heard  it  for  so  long.  Every  time  that  under 
a  former  administration  we  asked  for  information  as  to  the 
progress  of  diplomacy,  we  were  told  that  silence  was  impera- 
tive, that  the  question  was  pending.  And  later,  when  the 
administration  had  entered  on  a  false  course,  we  were  told 
that  the  affair  was  settled.  Pending  questions  and  settled 
affairs  are  the  two  points  between  which  we  have  been  fruit- 
lessly tossed  for  eighteen  years.  Such  conduct  might  be  ap- 
propriate to  a  monarchy;  it  is  not  appropriate  to  a  republic. 
....  The  newspapers  announce  that  Russia  and  Prussia 
....  insist  upon  a  European  congress  for  the  settlement  of 
all  questions.  A  congress!  What  would  be  its  bases?  The 
treaties  of  181 5,  the  principles  of  which  have  been  declared 
abrogated  in  the  manifesto  issued  by  the  honourable  M.  de 
Lamartine.  .  .  .  The  government  might  commit  you  against 
your  wishes.  No  matter  how  pure,  how  patriotic,  how  hon- 
ourable, its  intentions,  it  might  be  badly  advised,  it  might 
adopt  an  unfortunate  policy.  .  .  .  The  horizon  of  Europe  is 
charged  with  heavy  clouds.  .  .  .  Under  such  conditions  it 
would  be  abdicating,  abdicating  the  dignity,  the  greatness  of 
France  for  the  government  not  to  explain  its  intentions  clearly.^ 

After  some  further  debate  President  Marrast  fixed  a  day 
for  the  interpellations. 

On  the  appointed  day,  October  2,  Buvignier  asked  for 
information  on  foreign  affairs.  Cavaignac  declared  that 
it  was  inopportune  to  reply.     Then  Ledru  spoke. 

It  would  indeed  be  most  extraordinary  [he  said],  that  under 
a  republican  government  based   on  publicity,  this  Assembly 

1  Discoiirs  politiqucs  2  :  114-7. 


,lS   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [472 

slioukl  know  less  of  diplomatic  questions  than  under  the 
monarcliv.  .  .  .  How  can  we  aid  with  our  advice  an  admin- 
istration that  tells  us  nothing?  You  remain  obstinately  silent, 
not  concerning  questions  of  detail — that  would  be  comprehen- 
sible— not  concerning  diplomatic  correspondence — that  also 
would  be  comprehensible — but  concerning  questions  of  prin- 
ciple you  do  not  reply;  you  do  not  say  on  what  bases  you 
are  negotiating.  .  .  .  Our  policy  should  consist  not  in  inciting 
peoples  to  revolt  but  in  encouraging  the  spread  of  our  doc- 
trines, and  in  supporting,  by  force  if  necessary,  those  nations 
which  proclaim  them  spontaneously.  That  was  not  only  the 
policy  of  the  provisional  government  and  of  the  executive 
commission,  but  of  the  Assembly  itself.  .  .  .  The  existing  gov- 
ernment understood  for  a  while  the  wishes  of  France  on  this 
subject.  .  .  .  The  minister  of  foreign  affairs  says  that  we 
can  undertake  no  mediation  which  does  not  have  as  its  object 
the  complete  freedom  of  Italy.  .  ,  .  Now  Russia  and  Prussia 
desire  to  intervene  ....  and  we  hear  that  the  European 
powers  wish  to  unite  in  a  congress  to  deliberate ;  do  you  not 
recognize  in  this  suggestion  a  revival  of  the  Holy  Alliance, 
a  return  to  the  treaties  of  181 5!  .  .  .  I  understand  that  the 
government  believes  that  it  can  enter  a  European  congress 
and  yet  escape  the  application  of  the  treaties  of  181 5,  but  that 
is  an  utter  mistake;  inevitably  the  majority  of  the  countries 
represented  will  carry  our  government  with  them  or  there 
will  be  a  disadvantageous  war,  that  is,  a  war  undertaken  after 
a  failure  to  obtain  a  compromise. 

In  Germany  the  same  weak  policy  is  maintained.  France 
should  encourage  the  sole  hope  of  that  land,  a  union  of 
all  the  minor  states  without  Austria  or  Prussia.  See  how 
Prussia  has  already  abandoned  the  interests  of  Germany 
in  Schleswig-Holstein,  and  France  supports  her  policy. 

Thus  you  can  see,  citizens,  in  Italy  and  Germany  the  abandon- 
ment of  hopes,  of  promises.  Is  the  revolution  of  Februar>^  to 
be  compelled,  as  was  that  of  July,  to  let  the  movement  it  had 


472]  ITALIAN  AFFAIRS  319 

communicated  to  other  nations  subside?  .  .  .  Our  only  true 
policy  is  not  an  alliance  with  kings,  it  is  solidarity  with 
peoples,  so  that  on  the  day  of  battle  we  shall  have  on  our  side 
not  twenty-five  million  soldiers,  but,  as  M.  de  Lamartine  once 
said,  all  Italy  and  Germany.  .  .  .  We  members  of  the  Moun- 
tain do  not  desire  war;  the  democratic  party  has  rarel}? 
gained  thereby.  .  .  .  No  one  in  this  hall  wants  the  calamities 
of  war  for  the  sake  of  war.  .  .  .  But  if  owing  to  the  weak- 
ness of  our  government  war  is  inevitable,  I  ask  under  what 
conditions  we  can  best  wage  it,  whether  it  is  not  better  to  carry 
it  on  in  foreign  countries  rather  than  suffer  it  in  our  own 
territory. 

The  monarchs  wish  to  repress  republicanism  forever,  and 
once  they  have  extinguished  it  in  their  own  dominions  they 
will  try  to  extinguish  it  in  France,  the  cradle  of  liberty. 

To  remain  isolated  and  threatening  in  her  isolation  has  long 
been  the  policy  of  France  and  America.  The  situation  of  the 
two  countries  is  doubtless  not  the  same,  but  when  Washing- 
ton was  counselled  to  make  alliances  he  replied:  No  alliance 
with  the  continental  monarchies.  .  .  .  Therefore  I  ask  that 
the  government  pursue  no  more  negotiations,  .  .  .  that  it 
declare  firmly  that  what  it  wished  in  February,  it  still  wishes, 
that  it  desires  freedom,  complete  independence,  that  it  will 
insist  on  this  by  force  of  arms.  And  let  it  do  this  as  soon  as 
possible,  for  before  long  it  will  be  too  late.  The  peoples  that 
you  can  still  have  as  auxiliaries,  as  a  vanguard,  as  advanced 
sentinels,  will  soon  be  enslaved  anew  and  used  against  you. 
Confiding  in  your  own  resources,  you  would  still  be  victorious, 
I  swear  it  by  the  genius  of  France,  but  only  after  bloody 
efforts,  after  the  fatherland,  which  can  still  be  preserved,  has 
been  ravished.^ 

This  speech  presents  eloquently  the  fundamental  ideas  o£ 
Ledru's  foreign  policy,  namely  the  union  of  the  democratic 

1  Discours  politiqucs  2:  1 18-130. 


320  LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [474 

nationalities  of  Europe  under  the  leadership  of  France? 
against  the  Holy  Alliance  of  Russia,  Prussia,  and  Austria 
and  the  consequent  overthrow  of  the  reactionary  dynasties 
which  would  inevitably  attack  France,  the  source  of  pro- 
gressive ideas,  after  they  had  restored  the  old  regime  else- 
where. These  ideas  are  not  as  wild  as  is  generally  believed; 
they  embodied  the  only  hope  of  preventing  a  reaction  in 
Europe.  Ledru  clearly  saw  what  would  happen  if  France 
did  not  intervene.  Perhaps  he  was  too  optimistic  in  believ- 
ing that  even  with  French  aid  the  forces  of  progress  would 
have  been  victorious.  But  if  France  could  have  united  in 
a  single  group  the  various  liberal  elements,  the  Frankfort 
Parliament,  Mazzini,  Charles  Albert,  Kossuth,  and  possibly 
Poland  and  Rumania,  then  perhaps  the  reign  of  republican- 
ism in  Europe  would  have  begun  in  1848-9  instead  of  in 
1 91 7-9.  These  ideas  haunted  Ledru  throughout  his  life. 
He  advocated  them  consistently  in  his  parliamentary 
speeches ;  during  his  exile  they  constituted  the  guiding  spirit 
in  the  formation  of  the  Central  European  Democratic  Com- 
mittee.^ In  1850  it  was  too  late;  early  in  1849  there  was 
still  a  chance  of  success. 

After  Ledru,  Creton  spoke.  Instead  of  replying  to  Ledru, 
he  attacked  his  attitude  in  the  Risqouns-tout  fiasco.  Cav- 
aignac  declared  that  the  government  would  not  interfere  in 
the  internal  affairs  of  foreign  countries,  that  it  had  no 
love  for  the  treaties  of  1S15  and  would  not  accept  them  as  a 
basis  for  negotiation  in  Italy.  Buvignier  proposed  an  order 
of  the  day  approving  intervention  in  Italy,  Flocon  one  ap- 
proving the  ideas  formulated  on  May  24,  namely  Italian 
independence.  The  latter  attracted  much  approval  among 
the  members  of  the  left  and  left  centre,  but  the  order  of 
the  day  pure  and  simple  was  carried  441  to  336. 

^  See  Caiman,  Ledni-RoIIin  apres  1848,  Chapters  VI  and  VII. 


475]  ITALIAN  AFFAIRS  321 

The  Pope  at  this  time  was  Pius  IX.  Elected  in  1846, 
he  had  started  out  upon  what  seemed  a  Hberal  policy  and 
had  carried  through  a  few  mild  reforms.  The  news  of 
the  February  Revolution  had  excited  the  Roman  population 
and  Pius  had  been  hurried  along  rapidly  on  the  road  of  de- 
mocracy. He  finally  decided,  however,  that  affairs  had  gone 
too  far  and  he  started  to  beat  a  retreat.  He  had  seemingly 
promised  aid  to  the  provinces  of  Lombardy-Venetia  in  their 
revolt  against  Austria,  and  many  volunteers  had  left  the 
papal  dominions  to  swell  the  armies  of  Charles  Albert  of 
Sardinia,  but  at  the  eleventh  hour  Pius  evaded  his  promise 
and  proclaimed  neutrality.  A  little  later  he  replaced  his 
liberal  cabinet  by  a  more  conservative  one  under  Rossi, 
former  minister  of  Guizot  to  the  Vatican.  Then  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  Eternal  City  took  matters  into  their  own  hands. 
On  November  15,  1848  some  fanatics  murdered  Rossi,  and 
the  newly  assembled  popular  legislature  heard  of  this  un- 
moved. Disorder  broke  out  in  the  streets,  armed  bands 
threatened  the  palace  of  the  Pope.  Pius  IX  yielded,  called 
a  radical  ministry,  and  proclaimed  many  reforms.  But  he 
felt  himself  a  prisoner.  The  Roman  populace  maintained 
the  greatest  respect  for  the  pontiff,  but  indicated  its  deter- 
mination to  impose  its  will  on  him  as  a  temporal  ruler.  The 
French  government  of  Cavaignac  sent  a  small  force  to  in- 
sure the  safety  of  the  Pope  and  to  invite  him  to  France. 

On  November  28  Bixio,  member  of  the  left  centre  and 
former  minister  of  the  provisional  government  at  Turin, 
interpellated  the  government  on  its  attitude  toward  Lom- 
bardy  oppressed  by  Austria  and  toward  Rome  oppressed  by 
anarchy.  Cavaignac  replied  that  Lombard  affairs  had  made 
little  progress  and  that  an  envoy  had  been  sent  to  Rome  to 
investigate  conditions  and  to  restore  liberty  to  the  Pope  if 
he  were  under  restraint.  He  told  of  the  French  expedition 
sent  to  insure  liberty  to  the   Pope,   but   declared  that  it 


,j_.    LEDRU-ROLLI.\  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [476 

woukl  use  force  only  as  a  last  resource.  He  demanded  a 
postponement  of  the  debate.  Ledru  preferred  an  immediate 
discussion  but  acquiesced  in  a  two  days'  postponement.^ 

On  November  30  accordingly,  Ledru  told  of  the  murder 
of  Rossi,  the  quiet  that  prevailed  in  Rome,  the  unanimity 
with  which  the  Roman  army  and  people  had  demanded  a 
change  of  ministry,  the  uncertainty  of  the  diplomatic  corps 
in  the  Eternal  City  as  to  what  attitude  to  assume,  the  des- 
patch of  the  French  expedition.  He  declared  that  he  was  in 
no  way  opposed  to  protecting  the  Pope,  w^hom  he  reverenced 
as  the  head  of  Christianity,  but  that  he  considered  the  ex- 
pedition foolish,  for  the  cry  of  the  Roman  revolutionists  had 
been  Down  zi'ith  the  foreigner,  and  it  was  as  il  fuorestiere 
that  Rossi  had  been  slain.  The  Pope  was  no  longer  in 
danger,  Ledru  said,  but  the  3500  French  troops  were  sure  to 
be  attacked  and  overwhelmed  as  foreigners,  and  then  the 
anger  of  the  Roman  population  might  turn  even  against  the 
Pope.  Ledru  did  not  believe  that  Pius  himself  desired  the 
inter\'ention.  He  asked  how  the  spiritual  prince  w^ho  w^as 
to  be  protected  could  be  distinguished  from  the  temporal 
lord,  and  why  the  government  intervened  so  hastily  in  be- 
half of  the  Pope  while  it  did  nothing  for  oppressed  Lom- 
bardy,  for  Robert  Blum,  the  patriot  murdered  by  the 
Austrian  authorities,  or  for  the  Danubian  provinces  oc- 
cupied by  Russia.  He  insisted  that  the  sending  of  so  small 
a  force  was  either  a  folly  or  an  act  done  with  the  consent  of 
Austria,  and  that  the  executive  should  have  consulted  the 
legislature  before  sending  the  expedition,  for  it  w^as  an  in- 
fraction of  the  constitution  to  aid  a  prince  against  his  people.^ 
This  last  point  Ledru  just  touched  on  in  this  speech;  we 
shall  see  it  grow  in  prominence  in  later  utterances. 

'  Moniteur  3387. 

'Discours  politiques  2:  138-148. 


477]  ITALIAN  AFFAIRS  323 

Montalembert  declared  that  he  hoped  that  Venice  would 
defeat  Radetzky,  but  that  that  was  a  purely  Italian  question, 
whereas  France  as  a  Catholic  country  had  an  interest  in  pro- 
tecting the  Pope  who  was  a  universal  sovereign;  that  the 
spiritual  and  temporal  powers  of  the  Pope  were  inseparable; 
that  Rome  was  not  a  democracy  but  a  mobocracy.  Other 
conservatives  desired  France  to  continue  her  habitual  policy 
of  protecting  the  papacy,  or  declared  that  the  Assembly  was 
still  supreme  as  it  could  recall  the  expedition  if  it  so 
desired.  On  the  other  hand,  Ouinet  favored  moral 
aid  only  to  the  Pope  and  material  aid  to  the  Italian  people. 
Jules  Favre  maintained  that  from  Jesus  Christ  to  Char- 
lemagne the  Pope  had  not  been  a  temporal  lord,  and  that 
Ledru-Rollin  was  therefore  right  in  distinguishing  the 
spiritual  and  temporal  powers  of  the  papacy,  that  the  execu- 
tive had  no  right  practically  to  declare  war  by  despatching 
an  expeditionary  force,  that  Rome  was  quiet  and  the  Pope 
had  accepted  the  new  cabinet,  that  there  were  far  more 
reasons  for  intervention  in  Lombardy.  Minister  Dufaure 
claimed  that  the  government  had  been  forced  to  suspend 
offers  of  mediation  in  Lombardy  where  there  was  no  need 
for  immediate  action,  that  the  troops  had  been  sent  to 
Rome  merely  as  a  preventative  measure.  Cavaignac  de- 
clared that  the  Assembly  could  have  stopped  the  expedition 
when  it  was  first  announced. 

At  the  close  of  this  discussion  five  orders  of  the  day  were 
proposed  varying  from  complete  approval  to  complete  disap- 
proval of  the  expedition,  this  last  signed  by  Jules  Favre  and 
eleven  Montagnards.  Complete  approval  was  voted  480 
to  6^.  The  left  centre  and  most  of  the  left  refrained  from 
voting,  but  Favre  and  Lamartine  joined  the  Mountain  in 
the  minority. 

The  Pope  had  not  waited  for  the  French  expeditionary 
force  to  reach  Rome.     He  had  preferred  a  refuge  in  a  nearer 


324   LEDRU-ROLLIX  AXD  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [478 

and  less  democratic  country  than  France,  and  had  fled  to 
the  NeapoHtan  border-town  of  Gaeta.  When  the  Roman 
legislature  appointed  a  provisional  junta  and  called  a  con- 
stituent assembly,  Pius  refused  to  recognize  the  new  gov- 
ermnent  and  called  on  the  countries  of  Europe  to  reinstate 
him.  Soon  after  this  Louis  Napoleon  became  president  of 
France  with  Odilon  Barrot  as  premier  and  Drouyn  de  Lhuys 
as  foreign  minister. 

It  is  worth  while  stopping  here  to  indicate  the  different 
shades  of  opinion  in  the  French  legislature  on  the  question  of 
intervention.  They  are  very  hard  to  distinguish,  but  pro- 
bably they  w^ere  somewhat  as  follows.  Ledru-Rollin  and 
the  extreme  left  desired  the  recognition  of  the  Roman  re- 
public soon  to  be  proclaimed.  Favre,  Lamartine,  and  the 
left  did  not  wash  to  recognize  the  republic,  but  neither  did 
they  wish  France  to  exert  even  moral  pressure  on  the 
internal  affairs  of  Rome.  Senard  and  the  left  centre  desired 
to  give  Rome  an  opportunity  to  decide  freely  what  it  wanted, 
believing  that  a  liberal  constitution  under  the  Pope  would 
be  accepted,  and  that  moral  pressure  might  be  exerted  in 
favor  of  the  Pope.  Cavaignac  and  the  centre  w^ished  to 
liberate  Rome  from  the  tyranny  of  a  few  revolutionists  and 
give  it  an  opportunity  to  restore  the  Pope  peaceably.  Barrot 
and  the  rl^ht  centre  differed  from  Cavaignac  in  emphasizing 
the  desirability  of  expelling  the  anarchists,  and  in  refusing 
to  consider  the  possibility  that  Rome  might  not  desire  the 
restoration  of  the  Pope.  Drouyn  de  Lhuys,  Thiers,  and 
the  right  desired  the  restoration  of  the  Pope  by  France,  if 
it  could  be  done  without  antagonizing  the  French  legislature. 
Falloux  and  the  extreme  right  desired  the  restoration  of 
the  Pope  by  France  by  no  matter  what  means.  Montalem- 
bert  and  the  particularly  zealous  Catholics  desired  the  re- 
storation by  France  or  by  any  other  country. 

All  parties  except  the  clericals  favored  armed  interv^en- 


479]  ITALIAN  AFFAIRS  325 

tion  against  Austria  if  she  invaded  the  Roman  dominions. 
The  extreme  left  wished  cooperation  with  the  forces  of  the 
Roman  repubhc,  but  it  knew  the  Constituent  Assembly 
would  not  consent  to  this  and  it  feared  that  an  expeditionary 
force  would  restore  the  Pope  by  force;  therefore  it  op- 
posed the  despatch  of  French  troops  to  Rome  by  the  gov- 
ernment of  Louis  Napoleon.  The  left,  the  left  centre,  and 
the  centre  favored  the  sending  of  a  force  to  the  Eternal  City 
to  oppose  Austrian  aggression,  but  they  were  against  the 
use  of  this  force  to  attack  the  Roman  republic.  The  right 
centre  did  not  desire  to  authorize  an  attack  on  the  Roman 
republic,  but  it  was  willing  to  accept  a  fait  accompli.  The 
right  favored  an  attack,  the  extreme  right  insisted  on  it,  and 
the  clericals  regarded  it  as  the  sole  advantage  to  be  derived 
from  an  expedition  to  the  Roman  States. 

The  position  of  the  Prince-President  is  hard  to  determine. 
His  antecedents  would  have  placed  him  with  the  Mountain, 
for  in  183 1  he  had  fought  for  Roman  independence.  But 
he  was  now  posing  as  a  good  Catholic.  Probably  he  cared 
little  about  the  subject  except  as  it  might  be  used  to  streng- 
then his  position  in  France;  accordingly  to  gain  the  adher- 
ence of  the  clericals  he  worked  for  the  restoration  of  Pius. 
Moreover  Falloux  was  the  member  of  the  cabinet  who  had 
the  greatest  influence  over  Louis  Napoleon. 

On  January  8,  1849  Baune,  a  member  of  the  Mountain, 
interpellated  the  ministry  on  its  Italian  policy.  He  declared 
that  it  was  time  for  France  to  send  aid  to  Rome  and  Venice, 
that  joint  intervention  with  England  should  be  abandoned 
as  the  interests  of  the  two  countries  were  different. 
Drouyn  de  Lhuys,  the  new  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  as- 
serted that  the  Italian  question  was  still  too  delicate  to  be 
discussed,  that  the  government  stood  for  the  official  policy 
of  peace  instead  of  the  subterranean  policy  of  war.  Lam- 
artine  contrasted  the  attitude  of  the  existing  administration 


^26  LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [480 

with  his  own  open  diplomacy  under  the  provisional  govern- 
ment. 

At  this  point  Ledru-Rollin  intervened  in  the  discussion. 
He  declared  that  he  took  the  floor  because  of  the  minister's 
assertion  of  two  policies.  If  by  subterranean  policy,  he  said, 
anyone  meant  the  Belgian  affair  of  Risquons-tout,  let  him 
declare  so  openly,  and  an  answer  would  be  given  once  for 
all.  (No  one  replied  to  this  challenge.)  The  provisional 
government,  Ledru  continued,  had  adopted  a  policy  of 
peaceful  propaganda  alone.  The  existing  government  had 
abandoned  this  line  of  conduct.  Ledru  offered  three  in- 
stances. In  connection  with  Sicily  the  administration  had 
had  to  abandon  its  mediation.  In  connection  with  Rome  it 
had  acquiesced  in  a  joint  restoration  w^ith  Naples  and  Aus- 
tria of  the  Pope.  However,  the  revolution  at  Rome  had  as 
legitimate  an  origin  as  that  at  Paris.  The  Pope  as  a  spiritual 
lord  was  different  from  the  Pope  as  a  temporal  prince,  and 
the  right  of  the  Roman  people  to  overthrow  the  latter  should 
be  recognized.  In  connection  with  Lombardy  the  French 
government  was  foolishly  entering  into  negotiations,  since 
Austria  had  not  accepted  as  a  pre-condition  the  independence 
of  that  province.  Ledru  spoke  of  the  solid  line  of  reaction- 
ary armies  from  Holstein  to  the  Adriatic  and  of  the  Russian 
fleet  in  that  sea.  He  claimed  that  the  reactionary  armies 
threatened  France  and  that  a  horrible  conflict  between  civi- 
lization and  barbarism  would  soon  begin,  that  France  must 
act.^  Again  Ledru  had  clearly  indicated  his  policy  and  with 
more  precision. 

Drouyn  de  Lhuys  made  a  weak  reply  to  Ledru,  saying* 
that  all  these  affairs  were  matter  for  negotiation  not  war.  A 
Montagnard,  Bouvet,  protested  against  a  dishonorable  state 

^  Ibid.,  2:160-170.  The  Steele  of  January  9  compared  the  speeches 
of  I-edru-Rollin  to  balloons  filled  with  hot  air;  the  Peuple  of  January 
10  retorted  by  comparing  Barrot  to  a  wheezy  bagpipe. 


481]  ITALIAN  AFFAIRS  327 

of  peace.  The  legitimist,  La  Rochejaquelin,  demanded  that 
the  ministers  reply  to  the  facts  given  by  Ledru-Rollin  and 
which  he  believed  were  false.  He  declared  that  the  Roman 
revolution  differed  from  the  French  Revolution  since  in 
Paris  there  were  no  assassins;  that  in  Rome  the  Pope  was 
liberal  and  the  existing  government  composed  of  foreigners. 
Drouyn  took  the  floor  again  to  declare  that  the  Sicilian 
negotiations  were  still  open,  that  there  never  had  been  any 
idea  of  attacking  Rome  in  company  with  Austria  and  Naples, 
that  there  was  little  danger  of  an  attack  on  France  and  no 
need  of  ultimatums. 

Ledru-Rollin  reasserted  his  former  declarations  and  main- 
tained that  the  government  was  badly  informed  by  its  official 
envoys,  for  he  had  been  privately  informed  that  the  Belgian 
government  had  been  told  that  the  concentration  of  troops 
near  her  border  was  aimed  not  at  her  but  at  France.^  Here 
we  have  the  first  indication  of  the  fact  that  Ledru  was  the 
recipient  of  private  information  through  letters.  The 
leader  of  the  Mountain  had  a  large  foreign  correspondence, 
particularly  with  acquaintances  at  Rome. 

Drouyn  replied  that  Ledru  should  have  confidence  in  the 
embassies,  as  they  were  filled  largely  by  appointees  of  Lam- 
artine  and  Bastide,  that  there  was  no  need  for  further  justi- 
fying his  own  foreign  policy.  The  minister  of  the  navy, 
Tracy,  ridiculed  Ledru's  assertion  that  there  was  a  Russian 
fleet  in  the  Adriatic.  The  Assembly  closed  the  discussion 
by  passing  to  the  order  of  the  day. 

Soon  after  this  the  Roman  legislature  established  a  re- 
public, passed  some  anti-clerical  laws,  and  tried  to  unite  all 
Italy  in  a  league.  Mazzini  became  the  leading  figure  in 
Rome  and  other  persons  came  from  all  parts  of  Italy  to  aid 

*  Moniteur  6y.  Ledru  and  La  Rochejaquelin  had  a  dispute  over  the 
offer  of  the  Turkish  embassy  to  the  latter  by  the  provisional  government. 


.jS  /  / •7>/v'r-A'('/././A-  .ixnsi'.coNi) i-ri'.ncii  Ki-rcni  n •  | .|Sj 

ill  till"  ^uMMimu'iit  ol  llu-  iK'w  ii'i>iil)lic,  hut  llic  overwhelm 
ing  majority  kI  (hi-  iiu-mhcrs  ol'  iho  lo<;isl.ilmr,  ol"  ihc  }?ov- 
crmiKMit.  of  iho  army  wore  iialivi's  ol'  \\\v  T.Tpal  Stales. 
I'lorc'iKC  also  proclaimed  itself  a  repiihhe.  On  hi'hruary 
J4  the  Moiiiilaiii  sent  eotii;ratttIatit)iis  to  Kome,  aiul  on 
March  i.|  lo  I'lori'iux-.'  The  Koman  i'epnl)lic  si'ut  hrapolh 
to  Paris  as  its  envoy.  I'hc  hrench  government  refnsi-d  to 
reco^iii/e  him,  hut  he  was  well  received  hy  Ledrn." 

On  hVhrnary  jo  i«^.|.<)  Ledrn-Kollin  interpellated  the  min 
istry  on  foreii;n  allairs.  i  li-  proclaimed  the  glorious  ni'ws 
of  the  declaration  of  a  ri-pnhlic  at  Uome,  and  he  denomiccd 
a  riimorcii  plan  to  ri'slore  the  I'ope  hy  Sardini.ni  troops 
while  I'Vance  and  haii^Iand  patrolled  the  coasts."  1  )ronyii 
de  Lhuys  re|)lied  that  the  U'onian  repnhlic  nnist  |)rove  its 
stability  and  absolute  ability  lo  maintain  order  before  l''r;mcc 
could  send  it  aid,  that  the  intervention  of  Piedmont  was  not: 
as  easy  as  Ledin  implied  sinci-  ihert'  were  intermediate  states 
between  it  and  Kome,  that  the  spiritual  character  of  the 
Pope  made  the  Koman  (pieslion  a  special  out-  and  I'raniH- 
was  interested  in  it  like  all  Catholic  countries,  that  the  desire 
ol  tin-  !^M\c'i  nnu'iil  was  to  si'i-  orcK-r  reestablished  at  Konie 
and  that  many  plans  had  been  discussed,  that  the  Assembly 
would  be  informed  wlu'nev(M-  anylhin<:^  was  decidctl.  i 

'  Rdformi-,  M;mli  .?.  ji. 

"FcURiTc:  l.diiiiiituils  ,|i.|.  i'HVdvs  liiMii  .illicf  (icmiHTiits  also  came 
to  Paris.  Karl  I'.liiid,  wjio  latrr  hiTainc  .lu  intimat*'  Iririi.l  ol  l.dliii, 
am!  Scluicl/.  who  traiislalcd  iiilo  (KTiiian  I  ('(iiii's  l)t\-(utrii,r  <r.hi,ilr 
trrrr.  wrrc  .sent  hy  llu;  JM-aiikfoit  pai  ii.muiil  ;  lluir  lirst  visit  was  (o 
l>roiiyii  <k'  Lliuys.  tlu-ir  stron.l  to  l.c-lni.  I'.liiul  in  I'rosrr's  Ma;iiK:iiu- 
01  :  1'46.  Arnold  iKii>',c,  who  lalci  lnTaiiu-  one  ol"  l.cdrii's  collcaKiifS  in 
the  Central  I'.nro)HMn  Dcinocratic  roiimiillcc,  and  Sliiivc  cauic  (o  I'aiis 
cm  iK'li.-df  of  ihr  Ccmiaii  i  cpiiMti-aiis  lo  in;d<c  .111  .dli,inc.'  willi  llic 
Frcncli  ra<licals  lliroiiKh  l.cdni  .-md  Savoye,  aiiotlin  uundK-r  of  llir 
^Innnlairi  and   fornu-r  minister  at   I'Vankforl.     K'up/e  .-c)^. 

*Discourx  poJitiqucs  -i:  l,S«>-HX).     'I'lie  pirvi.ms  day  lie  li.i.l   asked  ikt- 
missinii  to  make  interpellalioiis.—  M,>iiil,iir  sf-Ji. 


^S^l  ir.ll.lAN  Ain'AlKS  329 

Then  lA'dni  spoke  a.i;aiii.  Amid  numerous  interruptions 
he  (listin^uislied  hetwxru  the  temporal  and  spiritual  lord- 
slii[)S  of  the  Pope  separated  even  recently  in  the  cases  of 
ritis  VI  and  Pius  VII  without  disturbance  to  the  church, 
'i'lie  government,  he  continued,  should  follow  the  line  of 
conduct  traced  hy  the  Assembly  on  May  24,  J84S  in  favor 
of  the  liberation  of  Italy.  Ledru  acknowledged  his  respect 
for  the  spiritual  prince,  but  he  also  declared  his  resi^ect  for 
the  judgment  of  the  Roman  people  against  the  temporal  ruler. 
I  le  observed  that  the  Roman  republic  had  proved  its  stability 
contrary  to  the  hopes  of  the  I'rench  ministry,  and  he  de- 
manded that  it  bi-  recogni/.ed.  Ledru  protested  against  a 
war  of  religion  in  the  nineteenth  century.  I  le  repeated  his 
(|uery  as  to  the  intervention  of  Piedmont.  He  declared  his 
conlidence  that  the  Roman  republic  would  triumph  in  spite 
of  the  intrigues  of  reactionary  diplomats.'  This  speech  is 
rather  rambling,  but  it  does  drive  home  some  strong 
arguments.  Again  Ledru  gave  information  based  on 
private  letters.  Frequently  the  government  denied  the  in- 
formation thus  obtained,  but  in  the  majority  of  cases  his- 
tory has  proved  that  Ledru  was  right.  In  this  case  it  is 
certain  that  there  were  negotiations  with  Sardinia,  though 
the  cabinet  would  never  admit  this  to  the  Assembly.  After 
a  few  more  speeches,  the  discussion  ended. 

On  IVlarch  8  there  were  more  interpellations.  lUivignier 
was  again  chosen  by  the  Mountain  to  begin  the  discussion. 
Me  spoke  of  the  new  Holy  Alliance  against  Italy,  asserted 
that  tlie  government  seemed  to  accept  the  treaties  of  18 [5, 
,'md  asked  the  recognition  of  the  Ivoman  and  Tuscan  re- 
publics .and  an  ap])roval  of  the  voti-  of  May  2.|  in  favor  of 
the   liberation    of    Italy.      I  )ronyn    dc    Llni\s    inadi-   no   real 

'  Discours  poliliciucs  2 :  i<)0-7.  BcRinniiiK  ;il  this  point,  tlie  chief  src- 
ondary  work  is  (MtTiiiont  and  Bourgeois:  Rome  ct  Najiulcnn  III,  a  work 
that  becomes  dct.iiled  after  May  7. 


330  LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [484 

reply ;  he  inerclv  declared  that  the  Assembly  had  ratified  the 
government's  Italian  policy. 
Then  Ledru  spoke. 

The  government  does  not  wish  to  declare  its  policy; 
I  siiall  try  to  reply  for  it  ...  .  well,  what  does  that  govern- 
ment reply?  The  Roman  republic!  We  cannot  recognize  it. 
The  Roman  republic!  It  is  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  all  the 
great  powers  of  Europe.  The  Roman  republic!  If  it  is 
threatened  by  foreign  intervention,  zve  cannot  prevent  it.  That 
is  what  the  government  says.  It  cannot  contradict  me.  .  .  . 
In  spite  of  such  a  liberticidal,  such  a  reprehensible  policy  the 
minister  of  foreign  affairs  dares  to  say  that  his  policy  is  the 
logical  consequence  of  the  order  of  the  day  of  May  24.  .  .  . 
Is  such  a  statement  serious?  If  it  is  serious,  it  is  disgraceful 
and  unworthy  of  France. 

Ledru  declared  that  not  only  had  France  pledged  her  sup- 
port to  the  liberation  of  Italy,  but  that  the  past  utterances 
and  actions  of  those  in  power  ought  to  be  a  guarantee  for 
Rome.  Drouyn  de  Lhuys  was  the  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee that  proposed  the  order  of  the  day  of  May  24. 
Barrot  was  the  statesman  who  has  said  in  183 1  :  "  If  a 
neighboring  power  should  proclaim  the  right  to  forbid  a 
people  ....  to  establish  another  social  order  than  that 
existing,  if  that  power  should  intervene  in  Italy  ....  to 
stop  an  insurrection  and  to  condemn  the  peninsula  to  re- 
main ....  under  the  arbitrary  rule  of  some  petty  despot 
or  of  some  government  half  theocratic,  half  despotic,  we 
could  not  permit  such  action."  Ledru  said  that  the  only 
condition  Barrot  had  imposed  was  that  the  time  for  a 
change  of  regime  in  Italy  should  be  ripe,  that  in  1831  the 
moment  might  not  have  been  opportune  but  that  no  one 
could  deny  that  the  present  moment  was.  "  To  deny  at 
Rome,"  Ledru  insisted,  "the  right  to  expel  the  temporal 


I 


485]  ITALIAN  AFFAIRS  33 1 

prince  is  to  deny  to  France  the  right  to  expel  Louis  Philippe. 
M.  Guizot  was  accustomed  to  speak  in  that  vein.  Give 
place  to  M.  Guizot."  As  for  the  president  of  the  French 
republic,  Ledru  continued,  he  had  fought  for  Rome  in  1831. 

Yes,  Rome  has  the  right  to  count  on  you.  Well,  what  are 
you  going  to  do?  Intervene?  Intervene  to  extinguish  liberty? 
You  cannot  do  so  without  violating  the  French  constitution 
....  What  is  said  in  article  5  ?  This,  that  France  respects 
foreign  nationalities;  its  forces  shall  never  he  used  against  the 
liberties  of  any  people.  .  .  .  To  intervene  directly  by  force 
of  arms,  to  intervene  directly  by  patrolling  the  coasts  of  Italy, 
or  to  intervene  merely  by  lending  moral  support,  by  giving 
counsel,  by  entering  into  negotiations  ...  all  these  methods 
are  forms  of  intervention,  and  the  constitution  prohibits  them 
with  its  inflexible  phrase.  ...  If  anybody  wishes  to  take  the 
floor,  and  defend  the  indissolubility  of  the  temporal  and 
spiritual  powers,  I  am  ready  to  reply  to  him.  My  reasons 
are  good  ....  for  during  fourteen  years  Napoleon  distin- 
guished the  spiritual  from  the  temporal  power,  and  yet  he 
was  not  an  irreligious  man  for  he  reopened  the  churches.  .  .  . 
Let  not  the  Pope,  a  priest  of  Christ,  provoke  bloodshed  for 
the  worldly  goods  condemned  by  Christ.  .  .  .  The  considera- 
tions which  I  have  developed  are  not  party  considerations ; 
they  are  considerations  of  national  honour.  .  .  .  Our  word  is 
pledged  to  Italy;  any  vote  which  will  lead  to  intervention  is  a 
vote  which  will  dishonor  him  who  gives  it.^ 

This  is  one  of  Ledru's  most  effective  speeches  on  the 
Roman  question.  Most  of  his  arguments  were  unanswer- 
able and  the  ministers  merely  evaded  replying  to  them. 
His  quotation  from  Barrot  was  admirable.  Barrot  could 
always  find  eloquent  words  for  any  cause  that  he  espoused. 
He    frequently  convinced   his   audience,   but   he  never   sO 

1  Discours  politiques  2 :  206-218. 


,  ._.   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [486 

thoroughly  convinced  himself  but  that  he  could  argue  on 
the  other  side  on  a  later  occasion.  Unfortunately  for  him 
in  1 83 1  he  had  a  good  cause,  in  1849  a  weak  one  to  defend. 

Ledru  had  declared  that  all  the  members  of  the  pro- 
visional government  except  himself  had  abandoned  the 
foreign  policy  of  that  government.  This  challenge  brought 
Lamartine  to  his  feet.  Lamartine  asserted  that  three 
policies  were  possible  toward  Rome:  that  of  the  Catholics, 
intervention;  that  of  the  radicals,  indifference  as  to  the 
Pope;  that  of  statesmen,  guarantee  of  the  independence  of 
the  Pope  but  political  power  in  the  hands  of  the  Roman 
People.  (The  latter  policy  would  undoubtedly  have  re- 
ceived the  whole-hearted  approval  of  the  radicals  though 
Lamartine  put  their  policy  in  a  different  category.)  Cav- 
aignac  maintained  that  the  policy  of  May  24  would  have 
led  to  war  and  that  his  government  tried  to  avoid  war. 
Lamartine  and  Emmanuel  Arago  observed  that  the  pro- 
visional government  had  prevented  the  invasion  of  Savoy. 
Sarans,  a  member  of  the  left,  asked  three  pertinent  questions  : 
What  would  the  Barrot  government  do  if  Austria  invaded 
Savoy?  If  the  Catholic  countries  came  to  the  aid  of  the 
Pope?  If  Austria  invaded  Tuscany?  Drouyn  de  Lhuys 
made  his  favorite  reply :  it  is  too  dangerous  to  answer.  The 
order  of  the  day  pure  and  simple  was  then  passed  by  438 
votes  to  341,  but  the  left  centre  joined  the  lefts  in  the 
minority. 

In  1849  Sardinia,  against  the  advice  of  the  French  cabinet, 
renewed  hostilities  with  Austria,  but  on  March  23  it  suffered 
a  second  overwhelming  defeat  at  Novara.  Austrian  troops 
even  crossed  the  frontier  into  Piedmont.  On  the  same  day 
as  the  battle  of  Novara  the  government  of  Rome  was  en- 
trusted to  three  triumvirs,  Mazzini  and  two  natives. 

On  ^March  30  Bixio,  former  minister  of  France  to  Turin, 
asserted  that  France  must  prevent  an  Austrian  occupation  of 


487]  ITALIAN  AFFAIRS  333 

Piedmont.  Mole,  a  member  of  the  right,  saw  no  necessity 
for  this.  Clement  Thomas,  a  member  of  the  left,  called  on  the 
ministry  to  explain  its  position.  Drouyn  de  Lhuys  declared 
that  France  would  safeguard  the  integrity  of  Piedmont. 
Another  member  of  the  left,  Billault,  demanded  a  clearer  ex- 
planation. Drouyn  de  Lhuys  began  his  reply  by  attacking 
the  provisional  government  for  its  unacknowledged  assist- 
ance of  the  expeditions  against  Savoy,  Belgium,  and  Baden, 
for  its  promise  of  aid  to  Italy  and  its  failure  to  intervene 
when  the  time  was  propitious.  He  declared  that  it  was  more 
difficult  to  intervene  now  against  a  victorious  Austria,  that 
the  government  nevertheless  still  demanded  the  independence 
of  Lombardy  but  felt  forced  to  modify  to  autonomy, 
its  demands  for  Venetia.  Drouyn  maintained  that  three 
policies  were  possible :  that  of  chance  or  leaving  Italy  alone ; 
that  of  individual  action,  which  meant  war  with  other 
nations :  that  of  cooperation  with  the  other  great  powers, 
the  policy  which  the  government  was  following. 

Ledru-Rollin  replied  to  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs. 
He  belittled  the  promise  to  maintain  the  integrity  of  Pied- 
mont since  Austria  had  declared  she  did  not  menace  that 
integrity.  He  declared  that  the  question  was  a  deeper  one, 
for  the  Austrian  army,  supported  in  the  rear  by  the  Russians, 
was  approaching  the  border  of  France  and  threatened  her; 
that  agreements  with  oligarchic  powers  were  valueless  and 
that  France  must  support  her  own  cause  at  Rome,  Florence, 
Turin;  that  the  provisional  government  had  been  ready  to 
intervene  in  Italy  whenever  its  aid  was  asked,  and  that  now 
that  situation  had  arisen  since  Italy  had  called  on  France 
for  aid  and  there  were  legitimate  republics  to  be  protected 
at  Rome  and  Florence.  Ledru  quoted  Barrot  and  other 
conservatives  who  had  desired  to  defend  Italy  in  1831  and 
who  had  sent  an  expedition  to  occupy  Ancona.  He  quoted 
those  who  in   1838  had  opposed  the  recall  of  the  French 


,  ._^   LllDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [488 

trcx)ps  from  Ancona :  Barrot,  Duvergier  de  Hauranne,  and 
Thiers.  "  For  the  concert  to  be  complete  only  one  man  is 
missing,  jM.  Guizot,"  he  said.  He  called  on  these  men  either 
to  defend  their  former  opinions  or  to  admit  that  in  1838I 
the  whole  affair  was  merely  "  a  war  of  miserable  ambitions." 
Ledru  closed  by  insisting  that  if  the  Assembly  did  not  favor 
the  liberation  of  Italy,  the  people  of  France  did.^ 

Droin-n  de  Lhuys  asserted  that  the  cabinet  had  substituted 
for  a  policy  of  agreement  with  England  one  of  agreement 
with  all  the  great  powers.  Jules  Favre  spoke  in  favor  of 
energetic  action.  The  centre  united  with  the  lefts  to  re- 
ject the  order  of  the  day  which  would  have  closed  the  dis- 
cussion. 

On  March  31  the  first  speaker  was  Cavaignac.  He  ad- 
mitted that  the  order  of  the  day  of  May  24  was  definite,  but 
he  claimed  that  it  carried  in  it  the  germ  of  war  and  that  his 
policy  was  to  maintain  peace,  that  his  system  of  mediation 
had  achieved  this  result  and  had  carried  out  the  wishes  o£ 
the  legislature.  Thiers  declared  that  France  w-as  not  pledged 
to  give  aid  to  Italy,  that  isolated  intervention  would  mean 
war  with  too  many  countries,  that  the  wisest  policy  would 
be  to  wait  until  Italy  w^as  united  and  in  the  meanwhile 
merely  to  prevent  other  nations  from  intervening,  that  the 
manifesto  of  Lamartine  has  guaranteed  the  freedom  only  of 
the  independent  states,  that  Ledru-Rollin,  inspired  by  good 
intentions,  had  desired  to  invade  Italy  under  the  provisional 
government  but  that  at  that  time  the  army  was  unprepared, 
that  it  was  too  late  now  to  fight  a  victorious  Austria,  that 
France  should  protect  only  Piedmont  and  aid  only  those 
states  where  order  was  maintained. 

Ledru-RolHn  replied  to  Cavaignac  and  Thiers.  He  in- 
sisted that  the  provisional  government  had  been  ready  to 

^  Discours  politiqucs  2:219-231;  for  extract  see  p.  316, 


489]  ITALIAN  AFFAIRS  335 

intervene  whenever  asked,  that  Cavaignac  had  been  asked 
but  had  not  sent  aid.  He  denied  that  Cavaignac  had 
followed  the  wishes  of  the  legislature,  for  he  had  always 
kept  it  in  the  dark  as  to  negotiations  and  had  never  asked 
its  opinion.  He  declared  that  the  speech  of  Thiers  was 
most  convincing,  and  that  the  only  thing  that  gave  him 
strength  to  reply  was  Thiers'  equally  convincing  argu- 
ment in  1840  in  favor  of  war,  Ledru  spoke  of  the  three 
policies  mentioned  by  Drouyn,  that  of  war,  that  of  negotia- 
tions, and  that  of  doing  nothing  at  all,  and  he  asserted  that 
the  last  seemed  to  be  that  of  the  ministry.  He  declared  that 
if  the  Mountain  wished  war,  certainly  the  conservatives 
wished  peace  at  any  price,  that  the  cause  of  Italy  was  not 
yet  lost  in  spite  of  Novara,  that  he  had  letters  from  various 
places  stating  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  peninsula  were  still 
ready  to  fight  Austria.  Ledru  said  that  a  failure  to  guar- 
antee the  independence  of  Italy  now  in  1849  would  dishonor 
France  far  more  that  it  would  have  in  1840  when  Thiers 
and  his  friends  spoke  so  much  about  dishonor.  Ledru  was 
sure  that  France  would  prefer  war  to  dishonor.^ 

Barrot  made  a  reply  abounding  in  attacks  on  Ledru,  apro- 
pos or  malapropos  of  the  subject  in  hand.  The  gist  of  his 
speech  was  that  the  cabinet  preferred  armed  mediation  to  war, 
that  to  occupy  Savoy  would  be  premature,  that  Ledru-Rollin 
did  not  realize  the  force  of  a  conciliatory  policy.  Dupont  de 
Bussac,  a  member  of  the  extreme  left,  closed  the  debate;  he 
ridiculed  the  idea  of  a  congress  in  which  eleven  monarchies 
and  the  republic  of  France  should  take  part,  and  from  which 
republican  and  French  ideas  should  come  out  victorious,  and 
he  asked  that  the  policy  of  May  24  be  maintained.  An 
order  of  the  day  was  passed  by  444  votes  to  320  approving 
the  occupation  of  Piedmont  if  the  government  should  think 

^  Discours   politiqucs   2:232-247. 


.  .6  LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [490 

it  necessary.  The  lefts  and  most  of  the  left  centre  voted 
in  the  negative,  not  because  they  opposed  aid  to  Savoy,  but 
because  they  wished  to  show  their  disapproval  of  the  general 
government  policy. 

Thus  the  vote  of  March  31  was  a  victory  for  the  govern- 
ment. Up  to  this  time,  the  ministries  of  France  had 
negotiated,  had  offered  mediation,  but  had  taken  no  active 
part  in  Italian  affairs.  Emboldened  by  this  vote,  the  Barrot 
cabinet  clearly  indicated  to  Austria  that  it  would  permit  no 
invasion  of  Piedmont,  and  Austria  acquiesced.  This  suc- 
cess gave  the  ministry  the  courage  to  pursue  a  vigorous 
policy,  and  it  determined  to  intervene  at  Rome. 


CHAPTER  XXII 
The  Roman  Expedition 

France  had  prevented  the  invasion  of  Piedmont  by  Aus- 
tria. Emboldened  by  this  success,  the  cabinet  formed  the 
plan  of  sending  a  body  of  troops  to  the  Roman  dominions 
with  the  avowed  purpose  of  preventing  an  invasion  of  them 
by  Austria.  The  cabinet  had  sent  two  conservative  diplo- 
mats to  a  conference  at  Gaeta,  where  the  Pope  was  staying, 
and  it  knew  that  Austria,  the  Two  Sicilies,  and  Spain  in- 
tended to  restore  the  Pope  by  arms.  It  decided  to  forestall 
these  countries.  Confident  that  the  presence  of  French 
troops  would  encourage  the  Roman  moderates  to  recall  the 
Pope,  the  cabinet  hoped  that  it  would  get  all  the  credit  for 
restoring  a  regime  both  papal  and  liberal. 

Accordingly  the  ministers  came  before  the  legislature  with 
a  proposal  to  send  a  military  expedition  to  Civita  Vecchia, 
the  port  of  Rome,  and  they  asked  for  an  appropriation.  The 
Assembly  appointed  a  commission  which  showed  itself 
doubtful  as  to  the  advisability  of  despatching  troops.  Bar- 
rot  and  Drouyn  de  Lhuys  assured  the  commission  that  any 
action  taken  would  be  independent  of  Austria,  that  force 
might  be  used  at  Civita  Vecchia,  but  that  it  was  impossible 
to  think  of  using  force  against  Rome.  After  this  apparent 
promise  not  to  attack  the  Roman  republic,  the  commission 
decided  to  approve  the  government  project.^ 

On  April  i6  Jules  Favre  in  the  name  of  the  commission 

1  Clermont  i6. 
491]  337 


.jS   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [492 

approved  the  expeditoii  which,  he  said,  was  to  be  sent  to 
Kome  to  guard  I'Vench  interests,  not  to  overthrow  the  re- 
public. Barrot  stated  his  position  as  follows.  "  The  policy 
of  the  French  government  is  not  to  allow  a  restoration  in 
the  Roman  state  in  defiance  of  our  principles."  "  Then  it 
is  a  restoration  that  you  wish,"  cried  the  left.  Barrot  con- 
tinued, saying  that  the  government  denied  solidarity  with 
the  republics  of  Rome  and  Tuscany,  that  it  did  not  wish 
changes  to  occur  in  Italy  without  the  participation  of  France, 
that  the  cabinet  would  not  allow  itself  to  be  drawn  into  a 
war  in  behalf  of  the  Italian  republics,  that  it  merely  desired 
to  safeguard  French  interests,  real  liberty,  and  good  govern- 
ment. This  was  hardly  an  explanation  to  satisfy  the  left. 
After  Ducoux,  a  deputy  of  the  left,  had  suggested  doubling 
the  appropriation  and  using  the  second  half  to  aid  Venetia, 
Ledru  obtained  the  floor. 

"  One  phrase,"  Ledru-Rollin  said,  "  struck  me.  ...  It 
was  the  restoration  of  the  Pope."  He  declared  that  on  one 
side  were  papal  pretensions,  on  the  other  the  sovereignty  of 
the  people;  that  the  government  policy  was  one  entirely  of 
expedients.  He  told  how  the  cabinet  had  refused  to  recog- 
nize the  ambassador  of  the  Roman  republic,  but  had  sent 
an  embassy  to  Gaeta  and  intrigued  there  with  the  other 
powers.  He  maintained  that  the  ministers  were  confident 
of  a  kind  reception  at  Rome  only  because  they  themselves 
had  sown  dissension  there,  that  the  sending  of  a  military 
expedition  violated  the  sovereignty  of  Rome  and  therefore 
the  French  constitution,  wdiich  forbade  attacks  on  the  liberty 
of  nations,  that  if  the  government  intervened  in  the  aflfairs 
of  the  Eternal  City,  it  ought  to  be  with  the  consent  of  the 
Roman  republic.  He  asserted  that  the  government  policy 
meant  either  the  forcible  restoration  of  the  Pope  or  war 
with  Austria  who  desired  this  restoration,  that  in  the  latter 
case  war  would  be  waged  under  unfavorable  conditions,  for 


493]  THE  ROMAN  EXPEDITION  339 

Italy  would  not  support  France.  Ledru  said  that  it  was 
a  serious  matter  to  extinguish  the  liberty  of  a  nation.  He 
asked  what  the  government  would  do  if  Italy  poured  forth 
men  to  defend  the  Roman  republic.  He  requested  a  plain 
statement  as  to  whether  the  cabinet  desired  the  restoration 
of  the  Pope,  and  issued  a  warning  against  such  an  action,  for 
it  would  cause  war  and  would  amount  to  a  betrayal  of  Italy.^ 

The  minister  of  war,  Lamoriciere,  declared  that  the 
French  troops  would  not  save  the  Roman  republic  but  would 
save  Roman  liberty.  The  Montagnard,  Victor  Schoelcher, 
asked  what  the  French  troops  would  do  if  the  Romans 
should  not  receive  the  Pope  back.  That  was  the  crux  of 
the  question  and  the  ministers  remained  silent.  Article  one 
of  the  bill  granting  an  appropriation  was  passed  395  to  283, 
against  the  vote  of  the  lefts  and  parts  of  the  centre.  The 
next  day  the  entire  law  was  passed.  The  Mountain  and  the 
left  voted  in  the  negative ;  most  of  the  left  centre  and  centre 
did  not  vote.  The  Assembly  had  now  agreed  to  let  the 
troops  of  France  enter  the  Roman  territory  to  keep  out 
Austria  and  give  moral  support  to  the  restoration  of  a  liberal 
Pope. 

Late  in  April,  1849,  the  French  troops  sailed  from  Mar- 
seilles and  after  a  little  parleying  landed  peacefully  at  Civita 
Vecchia,  the  port  of  Rome.  The  command  of  the  expedi- 
tion had  been  entrusted  to  General  Oudinot.  He  should 
have  combined  military  and  diplomatic  ability,  but  unfor- 
tunately he  was  a  mediocre  soldier  and  no  diplomat  at  all. 
It  would  have  been  difficult  to  make  a  worse  choice.  From 
the  minister  of  war  Oudinot  received  instructions  to  land  at 
Civita  Vecchia  and  to  make  arrangements  to  oppose  any 
Austrian  force  that  might  invade  the  Roman  state.  From 
the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  he  also  received  orders ;  these 

■■  Discours  politiques  2:278-291.  For  Ledru's  description  of  events  of 
this  day,  see  his  13  Juin,  reprinted  in  Discours  politiques  2 :  369-370. 


.  ,0   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [494 

(!»rders  the  cabinet  had  not  seen,  and  many  of  its  members, 
including  Barrot,  would  not  have  approved  them.  So 
strongly  did  these  orders  emphasize  the  fact  that  Oudinot 
should  not  recognize  the  Roman  republic  that  the  idea  of 
opposition  to  Austria  was  almost  forgotten,  and  that  a  blunt 
soldier  like  Oudinot  could  only  conclude  that  he  was  to 
undertake  military  operations  against  the  Roman  triumvirs 
if  he  thought  it  necessary.  In  the  meanwhile  the  Pope 
had  issued  an  allocution  that  should  have  dissipated  forever 
all  hopes  of  a  liberal  papal  regime;  Cardinal  Antonelli  had 
replaced  the  liberals  as  adviser  to  Pius  IX.  However, 
the  French  cabinet  continued  its  old  policy  toward  Rome 
as  though  this  reactionary  allocution  had  not  been  uttered. 

On  April  24  the  Mountain  expressed  its  feelings  in  a  letter 
that  has  never  been  printed,  and  which  gives  an  excellent 
picture  of  its  standpoint : 

Our  troops  have  left  our  ports.  The  soldiers  of  the  republic 
are  sent  to  Italy  to  lend  the  support  of  their  presence,  the 
prestige  of  their  name,  the  power  of  their  arms  if  necessary, 
to  the  restoration  of  the  Pope  to  his  temporal  throne  against 
the  will  of  the  Roman  people.  The  French  republic  is  thus 
to  serve  the  monarchic  principle  against  the  democratic,  prin- 
cely legitimacy  against  popular  sovereignty. 

Liberated  Rome  is  not  strong  enough  to  resist  the  coalition 
of  kings  and  royalist  conspirators.  It  will  succumb,  but  it  will 
leave  behind  the  memory  of  a  government  which  has  not  com- 
mitted a  single  act  of  violence,  which  has  always  conducted 
itself  with  admirable  dignity. 

Pained  as  we  are,  we  do  not  abandon  hope.  Force  may 
temporarily  repress  the  development  of  liberty,  but  liberty  is 
immortal;  it  will  conquer  force  as  spirit  will  conquer  matter. 
Pius  IX  after  having  betrayed  the  cause  of  Italian  liberty  by 
his  anathema  against  the  war  of  independence  has  fled  from 
Rome.     He  may  reenter  it  in  the  baggage-train  of  foreigners 


495]  THE  ROMAN  EXPEDITION  34I 

as  the  Bourbons  reentered  France,  but  the  same  destiny  is  in 
store  for  him  as  was  in  store  for  them.  The  hatred  and  scorn 
of  the  Roinans  will  hang  over  the  Catholic  pontiff  who,  in 
order  to  reconquer  a  vain  throne  by  the  force  of  arms  and  at 
the  price  of  bloodshed,  addressed  himself  to  all  the  kings  of 
the  earth,  even  schismatic  Prussia  and  Protestant  England. 

French  democrats  should  protest  against  this  act  of  liber- 
ticidal  violence  which  is  about  to  take  place  on  the  banks  of 
the  Tiber.  The  deputies  of  the  Mountain  have  decided  to 
give  the  Italians  a  proof  of  their  active  sympathy  by  forming 
a  committee  specially  charged  with  the  interests  of  Italian  in- 
dependence and  of  which  two  patriots  present  at  Paris  shall 
always  be  members. 

This  committee  is  composed  of  Citizens  Lamennais,  Ledru- 
Rollin,  Baune,  Felix  Pyat,  and  Victor  Schoelcher.  It  has 
just  organized  with  Cit.  Lamennais  as  president  and  Cit.  V. 
Schoelcher  as  secretary.  Its  purpose  is  the  liberation  of  the 
entire  peninsula;  its  motto  is  solidarity  between  the  French 
and  Italian  republics.^ 

At  Rome  Mazzini,  who  preferred  a  glorious  fall  to  a 
compromise,  had  been  strengthened  by  the  arrival  of  the 
great  Italian  patriot.  Garibaldi,  and  he  had  sent  a  message 
to  Oudinot  protesting  against  the  French  intervention.  The 
French  general  replied  that  "  he  was  resolved  to  enter  Rome 
as  a  friend  or  as  an  enemy."  The  advisers  of  Oudinot  told 
him  that  the  French  troops  would  be  joyfully  received  by 
the  inhabitants  of  the  Eternal  City,  that  they  would  be 
opposed  only  by  a  few  anarchists  and  strangers.  On  April 
29  Oudinot  attacked  Rome,  but  practically  the  entire  city 
marched  out  against  him  and  inflicted  on  him  a  humiliating 
defeat.  Drouyn  de  Lhuys  had  given  him  instructions  that 
did  not  comply  with  the  desires  of  the  French  cabinet  and 

^  Schoelcher  Papers  2:  172-4.  In  handwriting  of  Schoelcher.  See  ap- 
pendix.   There  is  a  similar  but  shorter  article  in  the  Reforme,  April  29, 


342    Ll-DRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [496 

still  less  with  those  of  the  legislature,  and  Oudinot  had  gone 
beyond  these  instructions.  After  revealing  his  diplomatic 
incapacity.  Oudinot  had  displayed  his  lack  of  military  skill/ 

It  was  on  May  3  that  the  French  cabinet  heard  of  this 
defeat,  but  it  kept  silent,  and  only  on  May  7  did  the  news 
become  generally  known.  Then  the  Assembly  made  a 
strong  protest.  Jules  Favre,  who  had  advocated  the  expedi- 
tion, opened  the  discussion.  Blood  had  flowed  in  Italy,  he 
said :  France  had  not  carried  out  her  promise  to  aid  Italy, 
but  had  attempted  to  overthrow  the  Roman  republic. 
Barrot,  Avho  felt  that  he  was  in  the  wrong,  could  merely 
babble  in  reply  that  France  could  not  let  Austria  impose  her 
will,  that  Oudinot  had  proclaimed  his  good  intentions  to- 
ward Italy,  that  the  cabinet  would  not  disavow  the  general. 
Lamoriciere,  a  member  of  the  centre,  asked  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  an  investigating  committee.  Flocon  read  a 
letter  which  he  had  received  and  which  stated  the  almost 
universal  resistance  of  the  Romans.  Drouyn  de  Lhuys  said 
that  he  knew  nothing  of  any  universal  resistance,  that  he 
too  desired  an  investigating  committee.  Favre  made  a  fiery 
speech.  What  will  the  ministers  do  now?  he  asked.  So 
far  they  have  acted  stupidly. 

A  committee  of  investigation  was  appointed  and  the  ses- 
sion was  suspended  while  the  committee  listened  for  hours  to 
the  ministers."     Ferdinand  de  Lesseps,  soon  to  become  a 

'  Clermont  20-43.  In  the  account  of  affairs  at  Rome,  Clermont  is 
rather  closely  followed,  tempered  slightly  by  other  narratives,  particu- 
larly those  of  Thayer  and  Gaillard.  Barrot  3 :  205  admits  that  Oudinot 
was  deceived  as  to  the  wishes  of  the  Romans,  that  Oudinot  made  mili- 
tary blunders,  and  that  Drouyn's  instructions  did  not  express  accurately 
the  wishes  of  the  French  ministers. 

'  On  the  committee  were  Schoelcher  of  the  Mountain ;  Grevy  and  two 
other  deputies  of  the  left;  Senard,  Goudchaux,  and  one  other  member 
of  the  left  center;  two  deputies  of  the  center;  two  of  the  right  center; 
four  of  the  right. 


497]  THE  ROMAN  EXPEDITION  343 

leading  actor  at  Rome,  was  watching  the  scene  from  the 
galleries.  In  his  memoirs  he  says :  "  The  irritation  in  the 
Assembly  was  great;  M.  Ledru-Rollin  and  the  extreme  left 
were  shaking  their  fists  at  the  ministers  and  a  free-for-all 
fight  was  imminent  when.  .  .  .  M.  Senard  quieted  his 
friends."  ^  Senard  of  the  left  centre  was  chosen  as  reporter 
by  the  investigating  committee.  In  a  calm  manner  he 
showed  how  the  expedition  to  Rome  had  not  carried  out  the 
purpose  for  which  it  was  sent,  and  he  asked  an  order  of  the 
day  urging  the  government  "  to  take  measures  without  delay* 
so  that  the  Italian  expedition  be  no  longer  kept  from  the 
purpose  assigned  it."  Drouyn  de  Lhuys,  minister  of 
foreign  affairs,  tried  to  prove  that  Oudinot  had  had  the  right 
to  expect  no  resistance,  that  the  general  had  been  received 
joyfully  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  Roman  States,  that  it  was 
only  foreign  adventurers  who  had  opposed  him,  and  that  the 
Assembly  had  practically  authorized  an  attack  on  the  Roman 
republic  by  giving  permission  for  the  occupation  of  Civita 
Vecchia.  This  speech  is  capable  of  two  explanations;  either 
the  minister  was  inexcusably  blind  or  he  was  wilfully  lying. 
Senard  replied  that  the  Assembly  had  definitely  insisted  that 
the  Roman  republic  should  not  be  attacked  and  that  the 
orders  given  to  Oudinot  had  laid  too  strong  an  emphasis  on 
the  non-recognition  of  that  republic.  Goudchaux  declared 
that  even  the  French  consul  at  Civita  Vecchia  had  stated  that 
there  was  strong  opposition  to  the  French.  Drouyn  de 
Lhuys  asserted  that  other  reports  declared  the  contrary. 
The  Senard  order  of  the  day  which  blamed  the  assault  on 
Rome  was  carried  328  to  241.  The  centre  joined  the  lefts 
in  the  majority."  This  was  a  crushing  defeat  for  th0 
Barrot  ministry,  a  real  vote  of  lack  of  confidence,  but  the 

'  Lesseps  i :  130-1. 

*  For  events  of   May  7,   see   Clermont  44-52.     Ledru   demanded  the 
floor  but  did  not  speak. 


..^   LEDRU-ROLLIX  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [498 

French  constitution  unfortunately  did  not  make  the  cabinet 
responsible  to  the  legislature,  and  Barrot  and  his  colleagues 
continued  in  office. 

President  Louis  Napoleon  aggravated  matters.  On  May* 
8  he  wrote  a  letter  to  Oudinot,  congratulating  him  on  the 
bravery  of  his  soldiers  and  asserting  that  the  stain  on  French 
honor  would  be  avenged.  A  clearer  defiance  of  the  express 
wishes  of  the  legislature  would  be  difficult  to  find.  Even 
P^alloux,  the  member  of  the  cabinet  most  favorable  to  the 
restoration  of  the  Pope,  admits  in  his  l\Iemoirs :  "  Most  of 
the  ministers  would  have  refused  to  sign  this  letter,  but  they 
dared  not  disown  it,  and  even  M.  Barrot  defended  it 
warml}'."  ^  This  letter  was  entrusted  to  Ferdinand  de  Les- 
seps,  the  future  builder  of  the  Suez  Canal,  whom  the  cabinet 
had  appointed  as  envoy  to  arrange  an  understanding  with 
the  Roman  triumvirs.  Lesseps'  instructions  were  to  nego- 
ciate  with  Mazzini  and  his  colleagues  and  to  make  some  ar- 
rangement with  them  for  the  French  protection  of  Rome, 
but  in  no  way  to  recognize  them  as  a  government  de  jure 
nor  to  offend  the  papal  court  at  Gaeta. 

On  May  9  Jules  Grevy  interpellated  the  government  on 
Louis  Napoleon's  letter.  Barrot,  who  did  not  approve  the 
epistle,  wriggled  cleverly  out  of  his  difficult  position.  He 
claimed  that  the  letter  was  not  an  official  document  but  a 
message  of  personal  sympathy,  and  that  in  it  there  was  noth- 
ing to  conflict  with  the  desire  of  the  Assembly.  He  told  of 
the  mission  of  Lesseps  and  he  asserted  that  the  government 
merely  desired  to  anticipate  the  Austrians  and  Neapolitans 
at  Rome.  He  praised  the  investigating  committee  for  the 
freedom  it  had  left  to  the  ministers.  Barrot  ended  by  de- 
claring that  he  wished  further  information  before  giving 
a  fuller  explanation.  This  reply  satisfied  Jules  Grevy  but 
not  the  Mountain. 

'  Falloux  1:451.  The  letter  was  published  by  the  government  organ, 
the  Patrie,  but  it  was  not  inserted  in  the  Moniteur. 


499]  ^^^  ROMAN  EXPEDITION  345 

Ledru-Rollin  opposed  a  postponement  of  the  discussion. 
"  Let  me  express  my  astonishment,"  he  said,  "  that  such  a 
despatch  is  called  private  and  confidential.  .  .  .  The  com- 
mander-in-chief must  place  the  letter  of  the  president  on 
the  order  of  the  day,  and  yet  you  claim  that  it  is  a  personal 
act,  one  that  has  not  the  official  character  of  an  act  counter- 
signed by  the  cabinet !  "  Ledru  admitted  his  realization  that 
the  Assembly  did  not  share  the  desire  of  the  Mountain  to 
recognize  the  Roman  republic,  but  he  insisted  that  an  entry 
into  Rome  had  been  authorized  only  if  the  inhabitants  wel- 
comed the  expeditionary  force  or  if  the  Austrians  ap- 
proached the  city,  that  Oudinot  had  marched  against  Rome 
without  either  of  these  two  conditions  arising  and  against 
the  advice  of  the  French  consul  at  Civita  Vecchia  and  the 
protest  of  the  Roman  assembly.  He  asked  why  the  presi- 
dent had  waited  five  days  after  hearing  of  the  assault 
and  had  chosen  to  write  his  letter  the  very  day  after  the 
adverse  vote  in  the  legislature.  Ledru  declared  that  the 
check  before  Rome  was  no  disgrace.  "  A  battle  is  not 
gained,"  he  said,  "because  one  remains  master  of  the  field; 
in  our  opinion  it  is  gained  when  one's  cause  is  just  and 
sacred  in  the  eyes  of  the  people."  Ledru  asserted  that  the 
French  soldiers  could  no  longer  claim  to  act  as  liberators 
since  the  Romans  had  clearly  expressed  approval  of  their  re- 
public, that  the  ministers  had  given  equivocal  explanations, 
that  they  might  delay  their  decision  but  must  disavow  Louis 
Napoleon's  letter.^  This  is  one  of  Ledru's  best  speeches; 
it  is  restrained,  sincere,  clear.  An  impartial  secondary 
writer  says :  "  Ledru-Rollin's  eloquence,  usually  declama- 
tory, was  more  dispassionate,  and  if  he  had  had  a  little  more 
finesse,  he  would  have  been  the  foremost  orator  of  the 
Assembly."  ^ 

^  Discours  poUtiques  2 :  298-306,   with   hiatus.     For  complete  ver- 
sion, see  Moniteur  1735. 
^  Clermont  65. 


-.^0   IJ-.DRU-ROLLIN  AXD  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [500 

Barrot  was  utterly  unable  to  make  a  satisfactory  reply, 
and  he  had  recourse  to  the  contemptible  expedient  to  which 
he  resorted  too  frequently — he  accused  Ledru  of  envenom- 
ing the  debate  and  called  Ledru's  conduct  outrageous.  He 
reasserted  that  the  presidential  letter  was  not  a  political 
manifesto  but  a  kindly  personal  message.  Flocon  proposed 
and  Grevy  seconded  a  motion  to  declare  the  letter  null  and 
void.  Barrot  announced  the  arrival  of  despatches,  and  the 
discussion  was  adjourned. 

On  May  10  Favre  demanded  what  the  despatches  con- 
tained. Barrot  said  that  the  information  in  them  was  in- 
sufficient. Ledru  requested  that  nevertheless  they  be  read 
so  that  the  Assembly  could  judge  of  their  importance.  He 
told  the  news  he  himself  had  received  from  private  sources : 
There  were  442  French  casualties  and  350  French  prisoners 
taken  in  the  battle  near  Rome.  The  troops  had  been  en- 
couraged to  fight  by  being  told  they  were  attacking  the 
Neapolitans.  The  Roman  triumvirs  had  sent  out  doctors 
and  medicine  to  help  the  French  wounded.  General  Bedeau 
declared  that  these  facts  were  impossible;  unfortunately  for 
him,  whatever  as  a  brave  general  he  might  think  of  the 
French  arm}^,  most  of  the  facts  have  been  proved  true  by 
history.  Against  the  protests  of  the  ministers  the  As- 
sembly insisted  on  hearing  the  contents  of  the  despatches. 
The  ministers  of  war  and  foreign  affairs  read  the  letters  in 
which  Oudinot  gave  his  distorted  version  of  the  fight  near 
Rome  and  of  conditions  within  the  city.  The  two  ministers 
claimed  that  Ledru's  statements  must  be  false;  really,  how- 
ever, it  was  Oudinot's  despatches  that  were  filled  with  mani- 
fest prevarications.  The  discussion  was  adjourned  to  the 
following  day. 

Meanwhile  the  hostility  of  the  president's  party  to  the 
legislature  was  plainly  shown.  Marrast,  fearing  trouble, 
had  ordered  General  Forest  to  come  to  the  Palais  Bourbon 


5oi]  THE  ROMAN  EXPEDITION  347 

with  his  two  regiments.  The  general's  duty  was  to  obey 
the  command,  but  he  sent  only  one  regiment  and  told  Mar- 
rast  that  he  obeyed  only  the  orders  of  his  superior,  General 
Changarnier.  The  latter  was  summoned  by  Marrast  but 
sent  only  an  aide-de-camp  who  expressed  Changarnier's  re- 
grets and  requested  that  in  the  future  all  military  orders  be 
transmitted  through  the  commander-in-chief.  "  It  was 
clear,"  says  Clermont,  "  that  General  Changarnier  was 
violating  the  law,  that  he  was  ready  to  violate  it  always;  it 
was  also  clear  that  he  acted  at  the  instigation  of  the  presi- 
dent." Barrot,  who  certainly  condemned  this  action,  de- 
fended the  General  and  expressed  regret  for  the  misunder- 
standing. But,  as  if  that  were  not  enough,  after  the  As- 
sembly had  shown  its  disapproval  of  Louis  Napoleon's  letter 
to  Oudinot,  after  the  ministry  had  declared  it  unofficial, 
Changarnier  had  this  very  letter  posted  in  all  the  barracks 
of  Paris  with  a  few  commendatory  words  of  his  own  ap- 
pended. It  would  be  difficult  to  excuse  so  flagrant  a  trans- 
gression of  the  wishes  and  rights  of  the  legislature.^  And 
Barrot,  who  talked  incessantly  of  respect  for  the  wishes  of 
the  Assembly,  did  not  insist  on  the  removal  of  Changarnier. 
Barrot  can  only  be  acquitted  of  an  inordinate  desire  to  re- 
main in  office  by  admitting  his  superabundant  stupidity. 

On  May  11,  fortified  by  the  occurrences  of  the  past  four 
days,  Ledru-Rollin  renewed  his  attack  on  the  government. 
He  asserted  that  the  coordination  of  the  events  at  Paris  and 
at  Rome  proved  that  there  was  a  desire  to  extinguish  the 
Roman  republic.  He  retraced  the  events  of  Oudinot's  ex- 
pedition and  read  new  letters  confirming  his  information  of 
the  previous  day.  He  recapitulated  his  arguments  on  the 
letter  of  Louis  Napoleon  and  denounced  Changarnier's  in- 
solent actions.  "  You  are  characterized,"  Ledru  told  the 
Assembly,  "as  the  enemies  of  the  army !  You  are  designated 

'  Clermont  67-9. 


.,^8   LEDRU-ROLLIX  AXD  SECOXD  FREXCH  REPUBLIC    [502 

as  prey  for  its  bayonets!  And  to  whose  profit?  To  the 
profit  of  the  pretended  head  of  the  government,  that  is,  an 
imperial  and  royal  simulacrum."  Ledru  spoke  of  how  he 
himself  had  defended  the  army  under  the  provisional  gov- 
ernment while  the  royalists  lay  in  hiding.  He  continued, 
reiterating  his  belief  in  the  existence  of  a  counter-revolu- 
tionary plot  and  demanding  an  impeachment  of  the  ministers 
for  violation  of  the  constitution,  since  they  seemed  to  be  in 
league  with  Oudinot,  Changarnier,  and  Louis  Napoleon. 
Even  Barrot  in  his  Memoirs  admits  "  Had  M.  Ledru-Rollin 
ended  here,  he  would  have  carried  a  new  vote  of  censure 
against  us,  and  he  would  have  made  our  position  increasingly 
difiicult."  ^  But  Ledru  went  too  far  and  ended  with  an 
appeal  to  recognize  the  Roman  republic,  something  the 
Assembly  was  unwilling  to  do.^ 

Odilon  Barrot  profited  by  Ledru's  mistake  and  launched 
into  an  oration  about  the  inadvisability  of  recognizing  the 
Roman  republic.  He  claimed  that  the  real  purpose  of 
those  who  magnified  the  importance  of  the  skirmish  near 
Rome  was  to  reject  the  result  of  universal  suffrage '  and  to 
cause  civil  war.  Again  Barrot  had  used  the  expedient  of 
envenoming  the  debate,  and  this  time  his  manoeuvre  was  suc- 
cessful, for  an  angry  clash  arose  between  the  left  and  the 

1  Barrot  3  :  226.     Cf.  Clermont  69. 

2  Discours  politiques  2  :  307-315.  The  conservative  Whig,  Senior  i :  22 
describes  the  scene :  '"  Ledru-Rollin  was  speaking,  or  rather  screaming, 
from  the  tribune.  He  is  a  large  red-faced  man  with  an  enormous  voice 
and  violent  action.  His  speech,  and  in  fact  that  of  every  speaker  on 
that  day,  was  not  a  continuous  discourse;  it  was  a  series  of  short  sen- 
tences, each  of  which  was  interrupted  or  followed  by  an  explosion  of 
fierce  denial  and  furious  abuse  from  the  other  side  of  the  chamber. 
His  voice,  I  have  said,  was  powerful,  but  he  mouthed  his  words  in 
order  to  give  them  emphasis  and  dropped  his  voice  at  the  end  of  each 
sentence." 

3  The  vote  for  members  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  was  two  days  off. 


_503]  THE  ROMAN  EXPEDITION  349 

right,  in  which  the  centre  forgot  the  real  subject  of  dis- 
cussion, forgot  the  inexplicable  conduct  of  the  cabinet,  and 
sided  with  the  ministers.  Barrot  then  proceeded  to  the  lame 
explanation  that  Changarnier  had  merely  wished  to  encour- 
age the  soldiers,  that  Changarnier  had  committed  neither  a 
political  act  nor  one  defiant  of  the  Assembly.  Clement 
Thomas,  a  member  of  the  left,  expressed  the  fear  that  Bar- 
rot  himself  by  his  actions  was  preparing  for  civil  war, 
Favre  made  the  same  statement  with  his  customary  vehe- 
mence ;  unfortunately,  he  read  a  letter  in  which  some  French 
prisoners  of  the  Romans  were  said  to  have  offered  to  fight 
with  the  Romans  against  the  Austrians.  This  was  exactly 
what  they  were  sent  to  Italy  to  do,  but  Tracy,  minister  of 
the  navy,  declared  that  then  these  French  soldiers  were 
willing  to  fight  against  France  if  necessary,  and  the  centre 
was  further  alienated  from  the  left.  After  some  more 
discussion  the  order  of  the  day  pure  and  simple  was  passed 
by  a  small  majority.  The  parties  in  the  Assembly  were 
hopelessly  split  on  this  vote.^ 

Leon  Faucher,  minister  of  the  interior,  telegraphed  to 
the  departments  the  result  of  the  vote  and  advised  the 
electors  to  cast  their  ballots  in  the  coming  election  only 
for  those  who  had  voted  with  the  majority.  This  abuse  of 
his  position  caused  his  fall  from  office.  Ledru-Rollin  and 
the  Mountain  proposed  an  impeachment  of  the  ministry, 
but  the  proposal  was  buried  in  the  committee  of  justice." 

The  ministry  had  emerged  successfully  from  this  series 
of  arbitrary  acts  and  clumsy  subterfuges.  The  end  of  the 
Constituent  Assembly  was  now  near,  and  Barrot  hoped  soon 
for  clear  sailing  with  a  subservient  majority.  But  in  the 
opinion  of  a  prominent  French  historian  the  events  and  de- 

'  Thus  Lamartine  voted  with  the  government,  Cavaignac  with  the  lefts. 
2  On  both  subjects  see  p.  289. 


-  -o  LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [504 

bates  of  tlie  past  few  days  had  made  only  too  clear  *'  the 
duplicity  and  brutality  of  French  policy  toward  the  Roman 
republic."  ^ 

On  !May  22,  Sarrans,  a  member  of  the  left,  interpellated 
the  government.  He  spoke  of  a  manifesto  against  free 
peoples  issued  by  the  Czar,  claimed  that  that  monarch  would 
invade  Italv  when  he  had  subdued  Hungary,  and  inconse- 
quentially concluded  that  Oudinot's  advance  on  Rome  ought 
to  cease.  Drouyn  de  Lhuys  declared  that  the  Italian  ques- 
tion had  been  sufificiently  debated.  A  desultory  discussion 
followed. 

Ledru  spoke  of  the  danger  of  an  attack  on  France  by 
Russia  when  she  had  snuffed  out  the  revolutionary  con- 
flagrations in  Germany  and  Italy.  He  compared  the  Czar's 
manifesto  to  that  of  Brunswick  in  1792,  and  he  declared  that 
France  ought  to  answer  the  Emperor  of  Russia  as  she  had 
answered  the  Emperor  of  Austria." 

Barrot  asserted  that  Russia  was  friendly  to  France  and 
that  there  was  no  danger ;  he  again  accused  Ledru  of  trying 
to  arouse  the  passion  of  the  Assembly.  Cremieux  and  other 
orators  came  to  the  support  of  the  leader  of  the  Mountain. 
On  the  order  of  the  day  there  was  no  quorum.  President 
Marrast  feared  trouble  and  ordered  up  some  regiments,  but 
Changarnier  again  instructed  his  subordinates  to  obey  no 
orders  but  his  own.  Barrot  prevented  trouble  by  inducing 
a  few^  members  of  the  right  to  vote  and  the  order  of  the 
day  was  rejected  459  to  53.  The  crisis  was  past,  but  Chan- 
garnier had  once  more  shown  his  insubordination.^ 

The  discussion  was  continued  on  the  following  day.  The 
extreme  left  had  proposed  an  order  of  the  day  protesting 

'  Monod  in  introduction  to  Clermont  v. 

*  Motiitettr  1866. 

2  For  debate  on  this  act  of  insubordination  see  page  2S9. 


^05]  THE  ROMAN  EXPEDITION  35 1 

against  the  actions  of  Austria,  Prussia,  and  Russia;  the 
centre  had  proposed  one  calling  the  attention  of  the  ministry 
to  Russian  affairs.  An  attempt  to  reconcile  these  two 
points  of  view  failed.  The  cabinet  adopted  the  vague  order 
of  the  day  proposed  by  the  centre,  and  it  was  passed  against 
the  vote  of  the  lefts.  The  debate  was  of  little  importance; 
it  did,  however  give  Ledru  an  opportunity  to  emphasize  once 
more  his  fear  of  an  alliance  against  France  among  the 
reactionary  monarchs. 

Meanwhile  in  Rome  all  manner  of  rumors  were  rife.  On 
May  12  it  was  even  announced  that  there  had  been  a  revo- 
lution in  Paris  which  had  carried  Ledru  to  the  presidency 
of  the  French  republic.^  After  the  battle  near  Rome  on 
April  30  the  Roman  party  which  favored  conciliation  had 
lost  all  power.  Mazzini  was  in  complete  control  of  the 
reins  of  government.  He  still  hoped  to  negotiate  with 
Oudinot,  but  an  attempt  through  the  liberal  Father  Ventura 
came  to  naught.  Mazzini  tried  to  touch  French  sympathies 
by  releasing  his  prisoners,  but  Oudinot  did  not  even  inform 
the  French  government  of  this  act.  Although  the  General 
refused  to  turn  Civita  Vecchia  over  to  the  Pope,  he  still  ex- 
pected to  attack  Rome  and  still  entertained  the  illusion  that 
a  large  part  of  the  city  was  friendly. 

To  Oudinot's  great  regret  Lesseps  now  arrived  and  sup- 
erseded him  as  negotiator.  The  new  envoy  soon  grasped 
the  situation  and  all  its  difficulties.  He  first  arranged  an 
armistice.  Then  he  began  negotiations.  Unfortunately 
Mazzini  was  unwilling  to  make  any  concessions  and  lost 
precious  time  when  an  agreement  permitting  the  French 
troops  to  enter  Rome  and  guarantee  her  independence 
against  Austrian  attacks  might  have  been  attained  at  the 
price   of   his   own   resignation   and   the   entrusting   of   the 

'  Debais,  May  22. 


352   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [506 

government  to  native  Romans.  This  would  have  been  a 
slight  blow  to  the  sovereignty  of  Rome,  but  it  was  the  only 
chance  of  safety  and  had  Mazzini  been  less  of  an  egotist, 
he  would  have  agreed  to  it.  In  the  meanwhile  Garibaldi  had 
defeated  the  invading  Neapolitans,  the  court  at  Gaeta  had 
refused  to  issue  a  liberal  manifesto,  and  the  French  elections 
had  given  an  overwhelming  majority  to  the  conservatives 
in  the  new  legislature  which  would  replace  that  which  had 
passed  the  order  of  the  day  of  May  7  adverse  to  the  attack 
en  Rome. 

Lesseps  continued  his  negotiations.  Oudinot  consented 
to  abandon  his  demand  for  the  resignation  of  the  triumvirs 
but  insisted  upon  an  entrance  into  Rome  by  the  French 
troops.  It  was  Mazzini  who  was  implacable  and  refused  to 
treat  unless  the  Roman  republic  was  recognized.  Oudinot 
as  a  further  sign  of  amity  consented  to  send  some  ambul- 
ances to  Rome.  INIazzini,  confident  that  the  French  elec- 
tions would  return  a  radical  majority,  had  dragged  the  nego- 
tiations out  until  Lesseps  was  on  the  point  of  breaking  them 
off.  Oudinot  had  become  convinced  that  force  should  re- 
place diplomacy,  and  it  was  with  the  greatest  difficulty  that 
Lesseps  induced  him  to  wait  a  little  longer.  Finally,  con- 
vinced that  Mazzini  was  playing  with  him,  the  French  envoy 
left  Rome. 

But  Lesseps  had  succeeded  in  building  up  a  strong  anti- 
Mazzini  party  in  the  city  and  when  he  finally  sent,  with  the 
approval  of  Oudinot,  a  project  which  he  declared  was  an 
ultimatum,  Mazzini  was  forced  to  give  in  and  to  agree  to  a 
similar  project  with  immaterial  changes  except  that  instead 
of  protection  France  should  give  friendship  to  Rome.  Un- 
fortunately in  the  interim  Oudinot  had  been  completely  won 
over  by  reactionary  influences,  and  when  Lesseps  returned 
from  a  visit  to  Rome  with  the  conditions  which  the  General 
had  approved  Oudinot  declared  that  the  new  treaty  was  con- 


^07]  THE  ROMAN  EXPEDITION  353 

trary  to  everything  that  France  desired.  Yet  the  new  treaty 
was  an  agreement  almost  identical  to  the  one  he  himself  had 
authorized. 

The  ministry  in  Paris  had  meanwhile  been  slightly  altered, 
and  the  Constituent  Assembly  which  had  been  hostile  to  the 
cabinet  policy  had  dissolved.  Accordingly  despatches  ar- 
rived recalling  Lesseps  and  authorizing  Oudinot  to  attack 
Rome.  Thus  just  at  the  moment  when  the  plenipotentiary 
of  the  French  republic  had  succeeded  in  carrying  out  the 
instructions  given  him,  when  he  had  overcome  insuperable 
difficulties  to  reach  the  precise  result  which  the  Constituent 
Assembly  on  April  16  and  May  7  had  favored,  he  was  dis- 
avowed. There  is  but  one  explanation  of  this  action.  The 
cabinet  had  not  wished  him  to  succeed;  it  had  merely  sent 
him  to  gain  time.  In  other  words  it  had  deceived  the  As- 
sembly and  its  own  envoy  into  believing  that  it  wished  to 
carry  out  the  desires  of  the  Assembly,  whereas  at  heart  it 
had  determined  to  attack  Rome,  to  do  exactly  that  for  which 
it  had  been  blamed  on  May  7, 

The  cabinet,  as  has  just  been  said,  had  undergone  a  change. 
The  president  of  the  republic  had  desired  to  form  a  more 
conservative  ministry,  but  Bugeaud,  to  whom  he  turned, 
had  asserted  that  this  was  inopportune,  and  Louis  Napoleon 
had  then  turned  to  Barrot.  The  latter  wished  to  strengthen 
his  own  party  in  the  cabinet  and  insisted  on  the  admission  of 
three  friends.  This  would  have  made  the  ministry  too 
liberal  for  Falloux.  Probably  in  order  to  conciliate  him 
the  attack  on  Rome  was  decided  on.  Thereupon  Drouyn 
de  Lhuys  resigned,  either  because  he  did  not  approve  the 
disavowal  of  the  agent  who  had  carried  out  his  instructions 
or  because  it  was  better  to  have  at  the  foreign  office  a  man 
who  could  claim  that  he  had  had  no  part  in  giving  the  in- 
structions.    Thus  when  then  new  Assembly  met,  it  was  con- 


354   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [50S 

fronted  bv  a  changed  Barrot  ministry  with  Tocqueville  as 
foreign  minister.^ 

At  Rome  Oiidinot  announced  the  end  of  the  truce,  and 
contrary  to  the  spirit,  if  not  the  letter,  of  the  armistice,  he 
immediately  occupied  a  few  advanced  points.  Fighting  be- 
gan on  June  3,  and  for  a  month  the  Romans,  united  under 
Garibaldi,  made  a  brilliant  defense,  but  the  force  of  numbers 
and  the  ability  of  Vaillant,  who  acted  as  adviser  to  Oudinot, 
brought  about  the  final  and  inevitable  success  of  the  French. 
The  Roman  assembly  surrendered  and  on  July  3  the  at- 
tackers entered  Rome.  A  little  later  the  Pope  was  restored, 
not  the  liberal  pope  the  French  had  hailed  but  a  reactionary 
pontiff  dominated  by  Cardinal  Antonelli.  After  using  all 
manner  of  subterfuges  to  gain  their  end,  the  Barrot  cabinet 
discovered  that  it  would  have  to  be  satisfied  with  something 
none  of  its  members,  except  Falloux,  desired. 

1  Clermont  73-174. 


CHAPTER  XXIII 

On  the  Eve  of  an  Uprising 

The  Legislative  Assembly  met  on  May  28,  1849.  In 
the  Assembly  ready  to  combat  the  government  at  every  step 
was  the  Mountain,  a  well-organized  group  of  socialists  and 
radicals.  Besides  its  own  forces,  this  group  could  rely 
always  on  the  support  of  the  independent  members  of  the 
extreme  left,  and  when  it  did  not  become  too  violent,  on  the 
left  proper.  Outside  the  Assembly  the  opposition  was  com- 
posed of  various  elements.  There  still  remained  some  rem- 
nants of  the  clubs,  and  these  were  ready  to  raise  a  riot  at 
a  sign  of  the  Mountain.  The  most  important  of  these 
secret  associations  was  the  Society  of  the  Rights  of  Man.^ 
Then  there  was  the  so-called  committee  of  twenty-five, 
which  had  been  appointed  by  the  democratic-socialist  party 
to  take  charge  of  the  elections  to  the  Legislative  Assembly 
and  which  continued  to  hold  meetings  after  the  elections 
were  over;  this  committee  seemed  to  favor  the  use  of 
violence.  Thirdly,  in  the  National  Guard  there  were  still 
liberal  elements,  headed  by  such  persons  as  Etienne  Arago, 
Schmitz,  and  Forestier.^  A  fourth  element  was  the  press. 
The  radical,  Delescluze,  editor  of  the  Revolution  demo- 
cratique  et  sociale,  was  the  chief  organizer  of  the  opposi- 

1  On  June  11  this  society  held  a  permanent  session  awaiting  orders 
from  the  Mountain.  —  Accusation  at  Ledru  trial,  Moniteur  for  1849,  p. 
3101. 

2  For  letter  of  Arago,  see  Liesville  collection ;  it  was  published  in 
Pcuple,  Vraie  Republiquc,  June  13;  Monitciir  for  1849,  p.  3103.  Reply 
by  commanding  officer  is  in  Liesville  Collection. 

509]  355 


3:56   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [510 

tion  to  the  government  outside  the  Assembly.  Besides  his 
journal  the  legislative  opposition  was  supported  not  only  by 
the  great  radical  and  socialist  newspapers,  the  Democratie 
pacifiqiic,  the  Pcuplc,  the  Reforme,  the  Repiiblique,  the 
Travail  affranchi,  and  the  Vraie  Repiiblique,  but  also  by 
such  moderate  journals  as  the  Credit,  the  Lihertc,  the 
National,  the  Temps,  and  the  Tribune  du  Peuple,  and  even 
by  the  Siecle,  with  which  Barrot  had  formerly  been  con- 
nected, and  by  the  Presse  of  Emile  de  Girardin,  a  free  lance 
always  in  opposition. 

The  opposition  relied  upon  three  articles  of  the  constitu- 
tion when  it  declared  that  that  document  had  been  violated 
by  the  government  in  authorizing  an  attack  on  Rome. 
These  were  the  following.  Article  5  of  the  preamble? 
"  The  French  Republic  respects  foreign  nationalities  as  it 
intends  its  own  to  be  respected :  it  does  not  undertake  any 
war  for  the  purpose  of  conquest  and  it  never  employs  its 
forces  against  the  liberty  of  any  people."  Article  54  of 
the  constitution  itself :  "  The  president  watches  over  the  de- 
fense of  the  state,  but  he  cannot  undertake  any  war  without 
the  consent  of  the  National  Assembly."  Article  no:  "  The 
National  Assembly  assigns  the  safe-keeping  of  the  present 
constitution  and  the  rights  which  it  consecrates  to  the  guar- 
dianship and  patriotism  of  all  the  French."  ^ 

On  June  4,  a  week  after  the  sessions  of  the  Legislative 
Assembly  had  opened,  Ledru-Rollin  demanded  permission 
to  interpellate  the  government  on  Italian  affairs.  Although 
Tracy,  minister  of  the  navy,  insisted  that  the  time  was  in- 
opportune, the  Assembly  appointed  the  seventh  for  the  de- 
bate. On  June  7  the  president  of  the  Assembly  read  a 
letter  from  Ledru,  who  was  ill,  having  been  confined  to  his 
bed  since  the  fifth.     The  letter  requested  the  adjournment 

^  Anderson  533-7. 


51 1  ]  ON  THE  EVE  OF  AN  UPRISING  357 

of  the  interpellation,  and  the  Assembly  consented  to  an  ad- 
journment until  June  11/  Nevertheless  Emmanuel  Arago, 
an  independent  member  of  the  extreme  left,  insisted  on  tell- 
ing of  the  agreement  made  by  Lesseps,  and  Bac,  a  member 
of  the  Mountain,  asked  whether  the  agreement  had  been  re- 
jected. Tocqueville,  the  new  minister  of  foreign  affairs, 
refused  to  make  any  declaration  until  June  11,  and  Barrot 
claimed  that  no  satisfactory  agreement  had  been  proposed; 
neither  Barrot  nor  Tocqueville,  however,  made  any  mention 
of  the  attack  on  Rome,  which  had  already  been  ordered. 

When  the  news  of  this  attack  became  public,  liberals  ^  as 
well  as  radicals  were  wild  with  rage.  On  June  10  an  at- 
tempt was  made  to  bring  these  elements  together.  A  meet- 
ing of  the  former  members  of  the  Constituent  Assembly  was 
held  at  the  Palais  National,  and  an  executive  committee  was 
constituted  with  the  moderate  Goudchaux  as  chairman.  A 
few  conservatives  had  attended  the  meeting  but  had  quickly 
withdra\Vn.  The  rest  of  those  present  signed  a  statement 
declaring  their  interpretation  of  the  three  violated  articles 
of  the  constitution,  an  interpretation  which  coincided  with, 
that  of  the  Mountain.^ 

On  the  same  day  one  hundred  and  twenty-three  members 
of  the  Mountain  drew  up  a  proclamation  to  the  German  de- 
mocracy. Although  the  affairs  of  Italy  were  more  serious, 
they  said,  their  brothers  across  the  Rhine  ought  not  to  be 
neglected;  the  proclamation  was  merely  a  word  of  encour- 
agement. This  manifesto  was  published  on  June  11  in  the 
radical  newspapers.* 

A  little  before  noon  on  June  11  a  meeting  of  the  radical 

'  Moniteur  2017. 

^  By  liberals  are  meant  such  persons  as  Cavaignac  and  the  members 
of  the  left  center  of  the  Legislative  Assembly. 
'  Gent  at  Ledru  trial,  Moniteur  3206. 
*  Moniteur  3101.    The  Rcforme  gives  124  signatories. 


-  -8   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [512 

and  liberal  press  was  held  at  the  offices  of  the  Dcmocratie 
pacitiquc.  Considerant  occupied  the  chair  at  first  but  soon 
ceded  it  to  Girardin.  Considerant  proposed  that  if  the 
Assembly  should  reject  the  impeachment  which  was  to  be 
moved,  the  deputies  of  the  opposition  should  announce  that 
the  constitution  had  been  distinctly  violated,  that  they 
should  declare  the  people,  the  officials,  the  National  Guard, 
and  the  army  released  from  their  oath  to  the  executive 
power,  that  these  deputies  should  proclaim  themselves  the 
only  legal  representatives  of  the  people  and  should  form 
themselves  into  a  rump  assembly  by  right  of  article  68  which 
provided  for  such  a  contingency.  A  desultory  discussion 
followed,  and  finally  Girardin  spoke.  He  declared  that  the 
freedom  of  the  press  and  universal  suffrage  must  be  de- 
fended, that  the  best  means  of  defending  them  was  for  the 
minority  of  the  Assembly  to  declare  the  majority  outside  the 
law,  but  he  opposed  any  rioting,  any  insurrection  in  Paris. 
This  was  an  approval  of  Considerant' s  scheme  for  a  rump 
parliament.  The  meeting  voted  unanimously  in  favor  of  the 
adoption  of  this  plan  of  action,  and  it  charged  Considerant 
and  the  two  other  deputies  present  to  inform  Ledru-RoUin 
and  the  Mountain  of  its  decision.^ 

Considerant  went  immediately  from  this  meeting  to  a 
gathering  of  the  jNIountain.  He  presented  his  propositions 
for  a  rump  parliament  and  urged  that  they  be  published 
directly  after  the  legislative  session.^  Apparently  the  Alon- 
tagnards  came  to  no  decision  at  this  time. 

As  soon  as  the  Assembly  met  on  that  day,  June  11,  Ledru- 
Rollin  brought  forward  a  motion  for  the  impeachment  of 

^Accusation  at  Leclru  trial,  Monitcur  3108;  Toussenel,  Brunier,  Cha- 
tard,  and  Vidal,  ibid.,  3160-4.  The  latter  testified  that  Girardin  opposed 
Considerant,  but  the  other  authorities  say  the  contrary.  See  also  Dari- 
mon  155;  Considerant  25-7. 

*  Considerant  27. 


513]  ON  THE  EVE  OF  AN  UPRISING  359 

the  ministry,  signed  by  one-hundred  and  forty-eight  deputies, 
Montagnards  and  independent  members  of  the  extreme  left. 
The  ministry  was  accused  of  violating  the  constitution/ 
Ledru  said  that  there  were  supreme  moments  when  phrases 
were  useless.  He  told  of  the  attack  on  Rome  made  on  June 
3  and  of  the  repulse  of  the  French  cavalry.  Barrot  and 
Tocqueville  denied  the  repulse,  but  Ledru  read  detailed  ac- 
counts from  a  Marseilles  newspaper  and  from  a  letter  he 
had  received.  The  leader  of  the  ^Mountain  told  how  a  sus- 
pension of  hostilities  had  been  asked  by  and  granted  to 
Oudinot  in  order  that  the  dead  might  be  buried.  He  pointed 
out  how  the  constitution  guaranteed  protection  to  the  republic 
of  Rome,  how  the  vote  of  May  7  in  the  Constituent  As- 
sembly had  disapproved  attacks  on  the  Roman  republic,  how* 
Oudinot  had  transgressed  the  wishes  of  that  Assembly  while 
the  ministers  were  professing  obedience  to  them.  "  Inter- 
pellations," said  Ledru,  "  are  worse  than  useless.  .  .  . 
The  truth  is  that  the  government  has  failed  in  the  most 
sacred  of  its  duties,  that  it  has  violated  the  constitution ;  the 
truth  is  that  an  impeachment  is  the  only  act  that  can  be 
directed  against  it."  Ledru  explained  his  definition  of 
French  honor,  not  the  capture  of  a  city  by  a  nation  of 
thirty-six  millions,  but  the  support  of  right  and  justice.  He 
repeated  his  demand  for  an  impeachment  of  the  president 
and  the  ministers.^  After  leaving  the  tribune  Ledru  added 
a  request  for  urgency."'* 

Barrot  began  his  reply  by  doubting  the  news  in  Ledru's 
letter.  (This  was  simply  tactics,  for  he  knew  that  every 
word  in  it  was  true. )      He  declared  that  impeachment  was  a 

'  The  Moniteiir  3102  states  that  there  were  148  signatories  but  men- 
tions by  name  only  146.  The  radical  papers  of  June  12  published  the 
list  of  signatories  giving  142  to  146  names. 

"^  Discours  politiques  2  :  334-9.    Cf.  Clermont  181-2. 

*Moniteur  2044. 


•.6o   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [514 

serious  matter  and  asked  the  Mountain  whether  it  would  re- 
main within  the  bounds  of  legaHty ;  Ledru  and  others  nodded 
assent.  Barrot  then  entered  upon  explanations  which  ex- 
plained nothing  and  statements  which  were  lies  or  half-truths. 
He  claimed  that  Rome  had  been  attacked  only  when  French 
honor  demanded  it.  (Yet  he  had  refused  to  support  the 
president's  letter  to  Oudinot  a  month  earlier.)  He  asserted 
that  the  recall  of  Lesseps  was  due  to  the  dishonorable  terms 
of  the  revised  treaty  made  by  that  envoy.  (But  Lesseps's 
recall  antedated  by  a  week  the  treaty.)  He  delivered  a 
eulogy  on  the  liberalism  of  the  Pope.  (Pius  had  just  re- 
jected the  few  liberal  concessions  requested  by  the  French 
envoys  at  his  court.)  Barrot  declared  that  Oudinot  had 
come  to  Rome  as  a  friend  and  had  encountered  war.  He 
compared  the  two  agreements  of  Lesseps  and  read  into  the 
revised  one  all  manner  of  interpretations  which  no  sane 
man  could  find  there.  He  emphasized  the  need  of  enter- 
ing Rome  before  the  Austrians  and  maintained  that  France 
was  defending  liberty  at  Rome.  The  Assembly  would  have 
backed  Barrot  no  matter  what  he  said;  so  Barrot  deserves 
little  of  the  praise  frequently  given  him  for  the  persuasive- 
ness of  this  speech.  If  he  had  come  out  plainly,  with  the 
intention  of  changing  the  policy  towards  Rome,  the  As- 
sembly would  have  agreed,  and  all  which  could  be  charged 
against  him  would  have  been  a  violation  of  the  constitution. 
Instead  he  misrepresented  facts  and  gave  false  reasons. 
This  is  the  same  Barrot  who  had  stigmatized  with  his  burn- 
ing eloquence  the  far  less  flagrant  insincerity  of  Louis 
Philippe's  ministers.  Human  psychology  is  peculiar;  how 
could  Barrot,  who  was  undoubtedly  honest,  reconcile  him- 
self to  this  hodge-podge  of  lies  and  misrepresentations?  ^ 

Of  course  this  tissue  of  subterfuges  called  Ledru  back 
to  the  tribune,  but  he  was  no  longer  the  calm,  dispassionate 

1  Cf.  Clermont  182-7. 


^I^]  ON  THE  EVE  OF  AN  UPRISING  36 1 

orator  who  had  dehvered  an  unanswerable  indictment  of 
the  cabinet;  he  was  the  leader  of  the  extreme  opposition, 
boiling  over  with  unrestrainable  rage.  During  the  earlier 
part  of  his  speech  he  controlled  himself  slightly,  but  as  the 
majority  remained  impervious  to  his  irrefutable  arguments, 
his  passion  was  too  much  for  him  and  he  let  himself  utter 
phrases  that  seemed  an  incitement  to  civil  war. 

Ledru  said :  "  There  is  something  profoundly  sad  in  see- 
ing to  what  a  point  the  most  solemn  acts  are  forgotten  or 
disfigured  by  verbal  jugglery."  He  quoted  the  decrees  of  the 
Constituent  Assembly,  the  words  of  Jules  Favre  on  April  16 
and  on  May  7  and  those  of  Senard  on  the  latter  date.  "  I 
declared  to  you,"  Ledru  said,  "  that  there  are  times  when  one 
is  overcome  by  despair.  I  do  not  know  of  any  power  of 
words  that  can  struggle  against  such  passages  and  such  re- 
solutions as  I  have  quoted.  .  .  .  You  asserted  that  you  had 
the  right  to  go  to  the  heart  of  Rome  and  make  French  blood 
flow ;  I  deny  that  right.  You  said  to  the  members  who  did 
not  belong  to  the  National  Constituent  Assembly  that  it 
gave  you  the  right;  I  say  that  it  did  not."  Ledru  showed 
the  duplicity  of  the  government  in  the  Lesseps  mission;  he 
asked  what  act  of  the  Romans  had  caused  the  sudden  rupture 
of  negotiations  and  the  attack  on  their  sovereignty;  he  ac- 
cused the  government  of  subservience  to  the  Pope.  Sum- 
ming up  his  arguments,  he  declared  the  government's  state- 
ments false.  So  far  his  indignation  had  only  made  his  argu- 
ments the  more  forceful,  but  now  he  was  carried  away. 
"  You  said  to  us  in  the  beginning  as  if  to  intimidate  us.  .  .  . 
Are  you  sure  of  remaining  within  the  limits  of  the  law? 
You  are  most  insolent :  you  have  violated  the  constitution 
and  you  address  such  a  question  to  us.  Our  answer  is 
simple;  The  constitution  has  been  violated;  we  zuill  defend 
it  by  all  means  possible,  even  by  arms."  ^  -^ 

1  Discours  poUtiqucs  2  :  340-9.    Cf.  Clermont  187-8. 


362   LEDRU-ROLLIX  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [516 

An  eye-witness  thus  described  the  scene  at  this  point ; 

I  can  again  see  M.  Ledrii-Rolhn  at  the  tribune  on  June  11. 
His  thundering  voice  filled  the  entire  hall.  .  .  .  All  at  once 
these  words — I  can  hear  them  still  after  twenty  years — were 
heard.  .  .  .  There  was  an  explosion.  .  .  .  Every  one  was  on 
his  feet  shouting.  The  entire  Mountain  clapped  its  hands. 
The  conservatives  glared  at  the  left  of  the  Assembly,  and  the 
Montagnards  replied  by  shaking  their  fists  at  their  adversaries. 
In  the  midst  of  the  tumult  M.  Ledru-Rollin  never  left  the 
tribune.  His  provocative  attitude  was  striking;  his  arm  was 
raised  in  a  menacing  manner,  and  his  head  was  thrown  back 
defiantly.  He  replied  with  a  disdainful  smile  to  the  call  to 
order  of  the  president,  and  anew  his  sonorous  voice  rang  out.^ 

For  twenty-five  minutes  disorder  reigned.  The  president 
was  forced  to  suspend  the  sitting.  The  Mountain  reechoed 
the  defiance  of  its  leader.  The  right  trembled  with  rage  at 
the  audacity  of  the  phrase.  Were  Ledru's  words  justified? 
They  were  unfortunate  as  they  gave  support  to  the  conserva- 
tive claim  that  Ledru-Rollin  advocated  an  uprising.  But 
there  was  no  such  intention  in  the  speaker's  mind.  Ledru 
always  tended  to  extremes  in  his  oratory,  and  this  was  the 
strongest  phrase  he  could  find  to  express  the  devotion  of  the 
Mountain  to  the  constitution.  Arms  might  be  used  as  a 
last  extremity,  but  he  had  pledged  his  word  to  Barrot  to  ex- 
haust all  legal  means  first.  ^ 

^  Achard  229-230. 

'  In  general  the  extreme  left  approved  what  Ledru  had  said.  Thus 
Xadaud  333  wrote :  "  It  was  amid  the  applause  of  the  extreme  left  that 
Ledru-Rollin  declared  ...  in  a  discourse  that  would  suffice  to  immor- 
talize his  name  that  we  would  oppose  that  monstrous  war  [against 
Rome]  even  with  arms  in  our  hands."  But  a  few  Montagnards  felt  that 
Ledru  had  gone  too  far.  Among  them  was  Commissaire  1 :  232,  who 
declared :  "  These  words  were  extremely  serious ;  pronounced  by  Ledru- 
Rollin  they  amounted  to  a  declaration  of  war.  .  .  .  The  ^Mountain,  how- 
ever, had  not  authorized  the  great  orator  to  compromise  it  imprudently 


517]  ON  THE  EVE  OF  AN  UPRISING  363 

Finally  the  disorder  subsided,  and  President  Dupin  re- 
opened the  session.  He  called  the  orator  to  order  severely. 
Ledru  retorted  by  invoking  article  no  of  the  constitution 
and  reiterating  his  final  words.  General  Bedeau  declared 
that  all  cherished  the  constitution,  but  that  it  was  for  the 
entire  Assembly  rather  than  for  the  minority  to  decide 
whether  it  had  been  violated.  Segur  d'Aguesseau  protested 
against  the  anarchical  doctrines  which  had  been  uttered;  he 
accused  Rome  of  treachery  and  asserted  that  the  vote  of 
May  7  was  self -contradictory.  Emmanuel  Arago  showed 
the  inconsistencies  of  the  government  and  asked  for  a  state- 
ment of  its  policy.  Larabit  expressed  the  opinion  of  the 
left  centre  when  he  disapproved  of  the  wild  words  from 
the  tribune  but  at  the  same  time  censured  the  Italian  policy 
of  the  cabinet,  Cremieux  of  the  left  and  Adelsward  of  the 
left  centre  proposed  orders  of  the  day  approving  respectively 
the  policy  of  May  7  and  of  the  Constituent  Assembly,  but 
the  right  passed  the  order  of  the  day  pure  and  simple  by 
361  to  201  votes.     Thus  ended  the  eventful  session  of  June 

il. 

On  the  evening  of  this  day  there  was  another  meeting  of 
the  liberal  and  radical  journalists,  this  time  at  the  office  of 
the  Peuple.  Ledru  and  other  Montagnards  were  present. 
Darimon,  an  editor  of  the  Peuple,  spoke  to  Ledru  and  was 
surprised  to  find  that  after  his  words  at  the  Assembly  the 
leader  of  the  Mountain  was  still  opposed  to  an  uprising.^ 
Considerant  renewed  his  proposal  for  a  rump  parliament. 
Girardin  insisted  on  the  right  of  the  press  to  criticize.  Then 
he  and  the  editor  of  the  National  retired  while  the  radical 

and  audaciously.    The  deputies  of  the  Mountain  could  have  refused  to 
accept  the  responsibility  of  this  declaration  as  did  the  other  republicans 
of  the  Assembly.    M.  Ledru-Rollin  would  have  lost  a  little  prestige,  but 
the  republic  vi^ould  have  been  spared  all  the  harm  done  by  June  13." 
^  Darimon  155. 


..(34    LEDRU-ROLLIN  AS D  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [518 

newspaper  men  went  to  the  headquarters  of  the  Mountain  in 
the  Rue  cle  Hasard  to  inform  the  deputies,  who  were  hold- 
ing a  meeting  there,  of  the  position  of  the  press/ 

On  June  12  Paris  arose  fearing  trouble.  The  National 
Guard  under  the  leadership  of  Schmitz  held  meetings  to  plan 
a  great  demonstration."  The  radical  press  printed  three  pro- 
clamations. One  from  the  Mountain  said :  "  We  presented 
an  impeachment  against  the  executive.  We  shall  sustain 
it  tomorrow.  We  wish  to  try  every  means  which  the  con- 
stitution places  in  our  hands.  Let  the  people  continue  to 
have  faith  in  its  representatives  as  its  representatives  have 
faith  in  them."  A  second  proclamation  was  from  the 
democratic-socialist  committee  (committee  of  twenty-five)  ;• 
it  pledged  support  to  the  Mountain.  The  third  was  an  ap- 
peal from  the  schools  that  all  Frenchmen  join  in  the  protest 
against  the  violation  of  the  constitution. 

The  editorials  in  the  radical  and  lilDcral  newspapers  o£ 
June  12  supported  the  extreme  left.  The  Peuple  "hoped 
that  the  Mountain  would  hold  to  the  oath  pronounced  by 
its  leader."  The  Democratie  paciiique  insisted  that  it  was 
time  to  appeal  to  the  country.  The  Vraie  Repiihlique  went 
into  ecstacies  over  Ledru's  oratory.  The  Rcpuhlique  said 
that  there  was  no  longer  a  constitution.  The  Revolution 
democratique  et  sociale  urged  the  Mountain  to  march  for- 
ward since  the  National  Guard  and  the  army  were  with  it. 
The  Re  forme  desired  the  defense  of  the  constitution  even 
by  arms.  The  National  insisted  that  Ledru  had  made  no 
appeal  to  violence,  and  it  ridiculed  the  attitude  of  Barrot 
and  Thiers.     The  Presse  asserted  that  the  right  of  inter- 

^  Darimon  155;  Considerant  27;  Laulerie,  Girardin,  and  Toussenel  at 
Ledru  trial,  Monitcur  for  1849,  pp.  3168.  3208,  3220,  3262.  There  is  na 
evidence  as  to  the  deliberations  of  the  Mountain  on  the  evening  of 
June  II. 

*  Accusation  at  Ledru  trial,  Moniteur  3102. 


519]  ON  THE  EVE  OF  AN  UPRISING  365 

pretaton  of  the  constitution  by  the  legislative  majority  was 
the  negation  of  that  document;  it  praised  the  oratorical  tri- 
umph of  Ledru ;  and  it  violently  attacked  the  Roman  expedi- 
tion. The  Credit  maintained  that  the  majority  in  the  Legis- 
lative Assembly  was  playing  with  the  constitution.  The 
Temps  considered  the  constitution  violated.  The  Steele  de- 
clared that  the  entry  into  Rome  would  be  similar  to  that  of 
the  Vandals.  On  the  other  hand,  the  incapacity  of  the 
Mountain,  its  inevitable  defeat,  and  its  desire  for  civil  war 
were  the  points  emphasized  by  the  conservative  newspapers.'' 

The  members  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  met  on  June 
12  expecting  further  developments.  A  member  of  the  right, 
more  frank  than  his  colleagues,  said  to  the  Montagnard 
Commissaire :  "  We  know  as  well  as  you  that  the  con- 
stitution has  been  violated,  but  it  has  been  violated  in  the 
interests  of  the  great  party  of  order  which  desires  the  re- 
establishment  of  the  monarchy,  and  we  do  not  wish  the  con- 
stitution to  be  violated  in  the  eyes  of  the  country."  "  About 
noon  the  extreme  left  held  a  caucus.  Considerant  again 
proposed  his  idea  of  a  rump  parliament.  Many  of  the  de- 
puties feared  that  the  government  would  seize  the  occasion 
of  the  peaceful  demonstration  planned  for  the  morrow  in 
order  to  provoke  the  semblance  of  an  insurrection.  Ledru 
in  particular  was  anxious  to  take  precautions  to  prevent 
such  an  occurrence.^ 

Lacrosse,  one  of  the  ministers,  demanded  urgency  for  the 
discussion  of  the  impeachment,  and  it  was  granted  unani- 
mously. A  committee  of  fifteen  was  appointed  to  consider 
the  advisability  of  an  indictment,  but  the  Assembly  showed 
its  utter  lack  of  fairness  by  appointing  to  it  fifteen  members 

^  Thus  Assemblec  Nationalc,  Constitutioinicl,  Courier  Prani^ais,  Di.v 
Dcccrnbre,  Gazette  de  France,  Patric,  Pays,  Union,  Univers. 

*  Commissaire  I  :  236. 

*  Vcrsigny  at  Ledru  trial,  Moniteur  for  1849,  p.  3168. 


.66   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [ 52a 

of  the  right ;  not  even  the  left  centre  was  given  a  place  on 
the  committee.  Among  the  members  were  Thiers,  leader 
of  the  right  proper,  Segur  d'Aguesseau,  who  had  distin- 
guished himself  on  the  previous  day  by  a  violent  attack  on 
Ledru,  Daru,  a  prominent  member  of  the  Rue  de  Poitiers 
group,  Attorney-General  Baroche,  Bedeau,  who  had  several 
times  contradicted  the  orators  of  the  left  on  the  Roman 
question.  In  fact,  the  committee  was  composed  of  men  who 
had  so  compromised  themselves  that  a  recommendation  for 
impeachment  would  have  been  a  self-accusation.  Grandin 
asked  whether  the  left  accepted  responsibility  for  the  appeal 
to  arms.  Pierre  Leroux  replied  that  he  and  his  friends  ap- 
pealed to  reason,  not  to  arms.^  Dufaure,  minister  of  the 
interior,  expressed  himself  as  pleased  with  this  answer, 
Now  the  committee  had  finished  its  deliberations  and  Daru 
spoke  for  it.  Naturally  he  completely  acquitted  the  gov- 
ernment and  claimed  that  it  had  faithfully  carried  out  the 
wishes  of  the  Constituent  Assembly.  Canet,  a  Alontagnard, 
inquired  what  government  France  intended  to  give  to  Rome. 
Barrot  avoided  the  question  and  talked  banalities  about  doing 
his  duty.  Laclaudure,  a  member  of  the  extreme  left, 
wanted  to  see  the  documents  on  which  the  committee's 
report  was  based.  Tocqueville  was  willing  to  produce  them 
since,  he  said,  they  were  favorable  to  the  ministers,  but  he 
claimed  that  it  would  prolong  the  debate,  for  all  the  im- 
portant ones  had  been  published  in  the  Moniteur. 

Ledru-Rollin  now  spoke.  There  has  been  much  comment 
on  the  mild  tone  of  his  speech  delivered  after  the  fiery 
word  of  the  previous  day.  Barrot  repeated  in  his  memoirs 
the  common  account  that  within  the  ranks  of  the  Mountain 
there  was  indecision  as  to  the  advisability  of  an  uprising,  and 

'  Many  writers  emphasize  the  fact  that  Ledru  was  silent,  but  there 
was  no  reason  why  he  should  have  answered  that  question  rather  than 
one  of  his  colleagues. 


^21]  ON  THE  EVE  OF  AN  UPRISING  367 

that  the  party  of  quiet  had  the  advantage  on  the  twelfth.^ 
Clermont  beheves  that  the  moderation  was  caused  by  the 
advise  of  Rusconi,  an  envoy  of  the  Roman  repubhc,  who 
considered  that  an  uprising  at  Paris  would  ruin  the  hopes 
that  Rome  still  retained  in  the  French  government.'  But 
Clermont  looks  too  much  to  Rome  and  too  little  to  the 
psychology  of  Ledru  and  the  Mountain.  The  explanation 
is  probably  simpler.  When  Ledru  had  declared  that  he 
would  defend  the  constitution  with  arms,  he  was  not  making 
an  appeal  to  insurrection,  he  had  no  desire  for  using  violence, 
he  was  merely  carried  away  by  the  heat  of  a  moment  to 
forceful  expression,  he  was  emphasizing  defend  the  con- 
st! tuft  07i  and  not  even  with  arms.  Therefore  it  was  natural 
that  the  next  day,  when  his  anger  had  cooled,  he  should 
adopt  a  tone  which  clearly  implied  a  desire  for  a  peaceful 
solution. 

Ledru  spoke  in  favor  of  the  communication  of  documents. 
After  protesting  that  the  Mountain  had  no  desire  for  agita- 
tion he  insisted  that  always  between  the  demand  for  impeach- 
ment and  the  final  decision  the  documents  in  the  case  must 
by  produced.  He  claimed  that  there  were  certain  vital  ones, 
notably  the  contradictory  orders  given  to  Oudinot  and  to 
Lesseps,  which  had  not  yet  been  made  public.  He  asked 
how  the  Assembly  could  know  that  the  indictment  was  frivo- 
lous if  it  did  not  know  the  facts  in  the  case.  "  You  can 
render  a  decision,"  he  said;  "  you  have  the  majority,  I  know 
— ^M.  Guizot  always  acted  with  a  majority."  The  right 
shouted  that  this  was  an  insult  to  universal  suffrage. 
Ledru  replied :  "  I  believe  in  universal  suffrage,  it  is  my 
faith,  but  I  also  believe  that  there  is  something  superior  to 
universal  suffrage,  for  the  electors  may  be  deceived.     That 

^  Barrot  3  :  291-2. 
*  Clermont  189. 


,(->§   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [522 

superior  something  is  eternal  right  and  justice,  that  inde- 
finable thing  called  human  conscience."  Ledru-RoUin  ended 
with  an  explanation  of  his  words  of  the  previous  day.  "  All 
pacific  means  to  defend  the  constitution,  but  if  it  is  violated 
....  as  I  said,  it  must  be  defended  by  each  of  us  with 
arms  in  his  hands."  ^  It  is  remarkable  how  peaceful  these 
words  now  sounded  when  divested  of  the  air  of  defiance 
with  which  they  had  previously  been  uttered. 

President  Dupin  desired  to  put  the  vote  whether  they 
should  proceed  to  the  discussion  of  the  question  of  the  im- 
peachment. Coralli,  a  member  of  the  left  centre,  wanted 
the  matter  referred  to  the  bureaus.  Laclaudure,  a  member 
of  the  extreme  left,  again  insisted  on  seeing  the  documents. 
But  the  president  persisted  in  putting  the  question.  The  in- 
dignant left  refrained  from  voting,  and  the  motion  was 
passed  377  to  7. 

And  still  Pascal  Duprat,  an  orator  of  the  extreme  left, 
insisted  on  seeing  the  documents.  Barrot  declared  this  un- 
necessary. Cremieux  maintained  that  the  signers  of  the 
impeachment  might  be  convinced  of  the  guilt  of  the  min- 
isters, the  majority  of  their  innocence,  but  that  there  were 
some  members  of  the  Assembly  whose  minds  were  open  and 
who  needed  documentary  proof.  Then  Thiers  rose  and 
made  the  great  speech  for  the  defense.  He  asserted  that 
Cremieux  had  the  right  to  ask  for  the  documents  but  not 
the  signers,  who  had  asserted  the  previous  day  that  the 
case  was  clear  without  them ;  ^  that  the  committee  had  ex- 
amined ever}1;hing  and  had  seen  no  basis  for  impeachment  ; 
that  the  Assembly  had  realized,  when  troops  had  been  sent 
to  Civita  Vecchia,  that  force  might  be  needed;  and  that 
these  troops  had  defended  liberty  as  well  as  order.  All  the 
facts  were  known,  Thiers  claimed,  and  there  was  no  attack 

'  Discoiirs  politiques  2  :  350-7. 

'  This  was  a  hit  at  Ledru,  Laclaudure,  and  Duprat. 


523]  ON  THE  EVE  OF  AN  UPRISING  369 

on  liberty.  The  government  had  tried  negotiations  and  had 
been  compelled  to  use  force.  "  We  think  that  the  country 
must  know  two  facts;  that  the  government  did  not  violate 
the  fundamental  pact,  and  that  a  government  which  knows 
how  to  make  the  law  respected  has  us  behind  her  to  aid  her 
in  her  task."  Thiers  did  not  have  a  promising  cause  to 
defend,  but  he  made  a  remarkably  eloquent  and  convincing 
argument.  He  was  the  only  orator  in  the  Assembly  who 
could  defeat  Ledru  in  the  forum. 

Of  course  the  leader  of  the  Mountain  was  compelled  to 
reply.  He  insisted  that  he  was  convinced  of  the  guilt  of 
the  ministers  but  that  he  needed  the  documents  to  convince 
the  country.  Thiers  claimed,  Ledru  continued,  that  this 
was  a  struggle  between  demagogy  and  order.  But  the 
demagogy  at  Rome  was  a  republic.  Thiers  had  twisted 
the  intentions  of  the  Constituent  Assembly;  why  did  he  not 
reply  to  Senard  and  Favre  on  May  7  with  his  distorted  ver- 
sion? Why  all  this  energy  to  repulse  the  Austrians  when 
all  Rome  asked  was  permission  to  repulse  them  herself  as 
she  had  repulsed  the  Neapolitans?  As  to  the  declaration 
that  this  was  a  struggle  between  demogogy  and  order,  this 
was  not  the  declaration  of  Thiers  but  of  the  Emperor  of 
Russia  in  a  manifesto.  It  is  a  question  of  monarchy  or 
republic,  said  Ledru.  The  Roman  republic  could  not  be 
reproached  with  the  murder  of  Rossi,  for  that  occurred  five 
months  before  its  proclamation.  The  Roman  republic  was 
not  a  demagogy,  for  it  was  based  on  universal  suffrage  and 
the  approval  of  the  population.  "  It  is  order  that  is  advanc- 
ing throughout  Germany,"  Ledru  said;  "  it  is  the  order  of 
Prussia  that  is  advancing  to  our  borders,  to  Kehl.  It  is 
order  that  menaces  our  frontiers.  You  belong  to  the  party 
of  the  Cossacks ;  you  are  not  republicans."  ^     Again  we  have 

1  Discours  politiques  2 :  358-364. 


.  -O   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [324 

a  convincing  if  slightly  rambling  discourse,  in  general 
moderate  in  tone  but  ending  defiantly. 

President  Dupin  was  about  to  call  the  orator  to  order 
when  Thiers  rose  to  reply.  Thiers  insisted  that  he  took; 
the  words  just  uttered  as  applying  to  himself.  Ledru  in- 
terrupted from  the  floor  to  say  that  the  word  Cossack  was 
merely  a  retort  to  the  word  demagogue.  Thiers  responded 
that  he  had  used  the  word  demagogue  in  a  general  sense  and 
that  it  was  Ledru-Rollin's  fault  if  he  thought  that  the  shoe 
pinched  him.  Let  the  country  chose  between  the  two  parties, 
Thiers  continued.  His  party  desired  order  as  well  as  a  re- 
public, in  Italy  as  well  as  in  France.  It  desired  order  and 
therefore  fought  Ledru's  influence.  Again  Pascal  Duprat, 
supported  by  Cremieux,  Pyat,  and  Latrade,  insisted  on  a 
vote  on  the  question  of  the  production  of  the  documents, 
but  Dupin  asserted  that  the  question  had  been  decided  and 
that  the  Assembly  should  now  vote  on  the  committee's  re- 
port. This  was  accepted  377  to  8,  for  again  the  entire  left 
refrained  from  voting.  The  left  centre  voted  with  the 
majority.     Thus  ended  the  session. 

June  12  was  a  mere  lull  in  the  struggle  and  brought  no 
permanent  results.  Ledru  had  made  able  speeches,  but  had 
added  nothing  to  what  he  had  said  the  previous  day.  The 
reader  should  notice  the  emphasis  given  to  that  higher  law 
which  was  declared  superior  to  universal  suffrage,  the  old 
theory  of  natural  law.  Thiers  had  shown  himself  a  re- 
markable defender  of  a  bad  cause  and  with  him  resided  the 
honours  of  the  debate;  but  he  had  employed  the  favorite 
device  of  the  right,  to  turn  the  question  from  the  subject  in 
hand  to  a  general  accusation  of  the  extreme  left.  The  right 
had  conspiciously  shown  its  unfairness.  The  impeachment 
had  been  submitted  to  a  committee  composed  wholly  of  the 
right.  The  production  of  the  documents,  demanded  by  the 
most  elementary  rules  of  equity,  had  been  refused  by  the 


C25]  ON  THE  EVE  OF  AN  UPRISING  2,7^ 

majority.  The  discussion  had  been  closed  before  the  sub- 
ject had  really  been  debated,  for  all  the  speeches  had  been 
on  the  question  of  the  production  of  the  documents.  It 
was  manifest  that  the  conservatives  would  give  the  opposi- 
tion no  chance  to  establish  its  case. 

Meanwhile  the  committee  of  republican  journalists  and 
the  committee  of  twenty-five  had  each  sat  all  day  June  12 
in  permanent  session  at  the  offices  of  the  Democratic  paci- 
iique.  No  member  of  the  Mountain  was  present. '^  The 
Mountain  held  no  meeting  in  the  Rue  du  Hasard  that  day 
although  members  ran  in  and  out  of  the  headquarters." 
The  Montagnards  considered  that  place  unsafe  and  went 
to  the  offices  of  the  Democratic  paciilque  where  a  room  was 
placed  at  their  disposal.  Various  independent  members  of 
the  extreme  left  were  present  at  their  meeting  but  no  non- 
deputies.  Considerant  still  insisted  on  his  plan  for  a  peace- 
ful protest  and  a  rump  parliament.  No  one  was  prepared 
for  an  insurrection,  and  Baudin  and  Nadaud  declared  that 
the  people  would  not  rise.  There  was  fear  that  the  authori- 
ties would  fire  on  the  peaceful  demonstration  planned  for 
the  morrow.  The  general  feeling  of  the  meeting  was  that 
they  should  definitely  declare  themselves  as  opposed  to 
violent  action.  But  Michel  de  Bourges  rose  and  favored  an 
insurrection.  Baudin  changed  his  opinions  and  a  former 
member  of  the  Constituent  Assembly  promised  six  thousand 
men.  This  was  not  believed,  but  the  question  of  appealing 
to  force  remained  open.^  Commissaire  declares  in  his 
memoirs :  "  If  Michel  de  Bourges  had  not  come  and  had 
not  spoke  at  this  meeting,  it  is  probable  that  June  13  would 
have  been  merely  a  peaceful  demonstration."  *     This  state- 

1  Ledru  trial,  Moniteur  for  1849,  pp.  3102,  3134-6. 

2  Ibid.,  3208,  3220-4,  3408.    Ledru  went  there  about  10  A.  M. 
^Commissaire  1:236-9;  Ledru  trial,  Moniteur  3142,  3168,  3220. 
*  Commissaire  i  :  239. 


'^'ro   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [  C26 

ment  is  an  exaggeration,  for  it  will  be  seen  that  on  the 
morning  of  June  13  the  ]\Iountain  was  still  opposed  to  any- 
thing like  an  uprising.  Ruge,  a  German  democrat  and  a 
friend  of  Ledru,  wrote  on  June  12:  "There  will  be  no 
fighting,  merely  a  peaceful  demonstration."  ^ 

A  committee  composed  of  Ledru-Rollin,  Pyat,  and  Con- 
siderant  withdrew  from  this  meeting  to  draw  up  a  pro- 
clamation. They  asserted  that  the  people  alone  was  sov- 
ereign, and  they  declared  that  article  5  of  the  preamble  and 
article  54  of  the  constitution  had  been  violated.  The  only 
method  left  was  to  confide  in  the  people,  the  National  Guard, 
and  the  army  in  accord  with  article  no  of  the  constitution. 
"  People,  this  is  the  supreme  moment,"  declared  the  pro- 
clamation; "the  government  has  ranged  itself  on  the  side 
of  kings  against  peoples.  .  .  .  Liberty  is  order,  is  the  con- 
stitution, is  the  republic.  Rally  to  the  cry  of  Hurrah  for  the 
Republic!  Hurrah  for  the  Constitution!  "  '  The  deputies 
all  approved  this  manifesto,  but  some  thought  that  it  was  not 
strong  enough.  A  declaration  of  the  Friends  of  the  Con- 
stitution was  read,  which  quoted  article  no  and  added: 
"  Let  a  creat  manifestation,  calm  as  justice  itself,  as  the 
sacred  cause  of  nationalities,  proclaim  boldly  the  protest  of 
the  French  people  against  the  audacious  enterprises  of  the 
authorities,  and  let  it  thereby  assure  the  triumph  of  the 
constitution."  This  declaration  was  also  approved  by  the 
meeting.^  About  three  o'clock  in  the  morning  of  June  13 
the  deputies  of  the  extreme  left  separated  after  handing  to 

^  Ruge  2:  loi. 

^  Moniteur  3102-3;  radical  papers  of  June  13.  Pyat  103  declared 
apropos  of  this  proclamation :  "  Neither  Ledru-Rollin  nor  Considerant 
nor  I  drew  it  up;  we  only  looked  it  over  with  its  author";  unfortu- 
nately he  does  not  say  who  the  author  was.  Was  he  perhaps  Michel  de 
Bourges?  All  other  accounts  attribute  the  composition  of  the  proclama- 
tion to  the  three  deputies. 

'  Ledru  trial,  Moniteur  3103,  3168, 


527]  ON  THE  EVE  OF  AN  UPRISING  373 

the  press  the  declaration  which  they  had  drawn  up.  It  was 
unsigned ;  so  the  newspapers  appended  at  the  end  the  names 
of  those  deputies  who  had  signed  the  proclamation  to  Ger- 
man democracy.^ 

It  is  clear  that  at  the  end  of  this  meeting  no  plans  for  in- 
surrection had  been  made.  Michel  de  Bourges  had  pre- 
vented a  decision  against  an  appeal  to  violence,  but  that  was 
all.  One  declaration  had  been  drawn  up,  another  approved, 
both  of  which  declared  that  the  constitution  had  been  vio- 
lated and  that  the  last  appeal  was  to  the  people,  but  both  of 
which  advocated  the  use  of  merely  peaceful  means  of  opposi- 
tion. 

^  Moniteiir  3168;  Commissaire  1:239. 


CHAPTER  XXIV 
The  Grand  Fiasco 

The  events  of  June  13  have  rarely  been  correctly  inter- 
pretated.  The  common  account  is  that  Ledru-Rollin  did 
not  desire  to  head  an  uprising  but  was  forced  by  his  fol- 
lowers to  organize  long  beforehand  a  definite  insurrection. 
He  is  supposed  to  have  declared :  "  I  am  their  chief;  I  must 
follow  them."  ^  This  explanation  of  the  events  of  June 
13  is  untenable,  for  every  shred  of  evidence  indicates  that 
there  was  no  premeditated  conspiracy. 

A  more  reasonable  explanation  of  June  13  is  that  Ledru 
and  the  Mountain  were  undecided  as  late  as  June  12,  but 
that  they  finally  declared  in  favor  of  an  insurrection  and 
worked  with  that  end  in  view  on  the  thirteenth."    Thus  jMaz- 

1  This  is  the  account  given  by  Ledru's  contemporaries :  Ambes  i : 
204-9;  Barrot  3:297-312;  Falloux  1:481-2;  Freycinet  56-7;  Granier  de 
Cassagnac  2 :  89-94 ;  Maupas  i :  60-2 ;  Melun  2  :  39 ;  Persigny  72-4 ; 
Quentin-Bauchart  1:266-274;  and  by  such  secondary  writers  as  Forster 
250-1;  Gradis  2:375;  Jerrold  3:89-96;  La  Gorce  2:167-180;  Pierre 
Quentin-Bauchart  in  Nouvelle  Revue  N.  S.  16:538;  Weill  323-6.  This 
is  the  thesis  adopted  by  the  prosecution  at  Versailles.  Calumnious  ac- 
counts also  exist.  Vielcastel  i:  114  declares  that  Ledru  was  induced  to 
revolt  by  his  mistress,  Judith,  an  actress  and  police  spy.  Lavarenne, 
Rouges  61-2,  and  Mirecourt  88-90  claim  that  Ledru  was  forced  at  the 
point  of  a  pistol  to  support  an  uprising.  ...  As  to  the  phrase  "  I  am 
their  chief;  I  must  follow  them,"  it  is  probably  apocryphal.  The  only 
definite  testimony  on  this  point  is  by  Pressense  in  Revue  Bleue  ig- :  549. 
who  declares  that  Ledru  made  this  remark  to  Maleville. 

*  Among  contemporaries,  Beaumont -Vassy  4 :  496-7  and  Castille  4 :  96- 
122;  among  secondary  writers,  Lebey,  Ministere  444-509;  Martin  3:220; 
Pierre  2:  156-214;  Renard  151-2. 

374  [528 


^29]  THE  GRAND  FIASCO  375 

zini  says  in  his  Note  autohiografe:  "  On  June  13  our  friends 
in  the  French  assembly  under  Ledru-RoUin's  leadership  at- 
tempted to  arouse  Paris  against  the  infamous  actions  which 
had  been  committed,  but  they  were  unsuccessful.  Their 
attempt  was  a  summons  to  insurrection  without  the  prepara- 
tions necessary  to  initiate  it."  ^  The  nephew  of  Jaeger,  a 
disciple  of  Fourier,  gives  a  peculiar  piece  of  testimony: 
"  Ledru-Rollin  had  promised  to  Considerant,  that  he  would 
establish  a  phalanstery  if  he  arrived  in  power.  Considerant 
and  Cantagrel  supported  Ledru-Rollin  at  Paris  in  the  hope 
of  obtaining  this.  Jaeger  was  informed  by  them  of  their 
hopes  and  obeyed  their  order  to  join  the  uprising."  "  This 
narrative  does  not  fit  in  which  the  testimony  of  other  con- 
temporaries as  to  the  actions  of  Considerant. 

Far  nearer  the  truth  than  the  idea  either  of  a  premeditated 
plot  or  of  an  unpremeditated  uprising  is  the  version,  preju- 
diced to  be  sure,  adopted  by  those  contemporaries  who  took 
part  in  the  movement  against  the  government.  They  in- 
.sist  that  there  was  no  insurrection  at  all.^  This  was  also 
Ledru-Rollin's  opinion.  In  1874  he  declared  in  a  speech: 
"  There  was  an  attempt  at  a  peaceful  manifestation  which 
was  intended  merely  to  take  the  form  of  a  declaration  be- 
fore the  National  Assembly,  but  there  was  no  appeal  to 

'  Mazzini  5  :  192. 

^  Muller  182.     Cf.  Revolution  de  1848,  5  :  711. 

3  Comrtiissaire  239-245 ;  Considerant,  passim ;  Guinard  in  Messager  du 
Nord,  June  26,  1849;  Nadaud  334-5;  St.  Ferreol;  Menioires  2:190-7; 
various  persons  at  Ledru  trial.  Also  all  those  who  knew  the  radicals, 
Blind  in  Eraser's  Magazine  91 :  246-8;  Proles,  Delescluze,  26-8.  Also  all 
the  radical  newspapers  of  1849  jind  many  liberal  ones  such  as  the 
National.  Among  secondary  writers  the  only  ones  who  accept  this  view 
are  Hamel  343-8,  who  accepts  it  on  faith,  and  Raoul  de  Felice  in  Revo- 
lution de  1848,  6:  133-157,  243-252,  who  accepts  it  after  a  long  investi- 
gation. Felice  gives  the  only  satisfactory  account  of  June  13;  he  be- 
lieves that  the  supposed  uprising  was  a  Bonapartist  plot.  Seignobos 
138-9  is  non-committal  as  to  the  responsibility  of  the  Mountain. 


.-6   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [530 

amis  and  indeed  not  a  shot  was  fired."  ^  Late  in  1849 
Ledru-Rollin  wrote  a  pamphlet  called  Le  JJ  Jidn;  in  it  we 
would  naturally  expect  to  find  a  good  deal  of  evidence  con- 
cerning the  events  of  that  day,  but  it  contains  only  generali- 
ties. Ledru  demolished  many  of  the  arguments  of  his  op- 
ponents, but  he  gave  no  definite  account  of  his  actions  in 
June  1849.- 

It  is  difficult  completely  to  absolve  the  Mountain  from  the 
charge  of  taking  part  in  an  insurrection.  Certainly  before 
June  13  the  Mountain  engaged  in  no  conspiracy.  A  few  of 
its  members,  notably  Michel  de  Bourges,  desired  to  resort  to 
violence,  but  most  of  the  Montagnards  up  to  and  through 
June  12  were  opposed  to  any  sort  of  uprising.  On  the 
thirteenth  the  deputies  of  the  Mountain  did  not  know  what 
course  to  take  when  they  heard  that  the  manifestation  had 
been  dispersed.  Embarrassed  by  the  unrealisable  scheme  for 
a  rump  parliament  advocated  by  the  pacific  Considerant,  the 
leaders  of  the  Mountain  seem  finally  to  have  decided  to 
use  force  to  defend  themselves.  Before  they  had  time  to 
draw  up  any  definite  plan  of  action,  they  were  routed. 
The  Mountain  should,  therefore,  be  absolved  from  the  charge 
of  a  premeditated  plot,  but  should  be  found  guilty  of  a  half- 
hearted appeal  to  arms  at  the  eleventh  hour  for  the  purpose 
of  an  armed  resistance  to  the  authorities.  As  to  the  De- 
mocratic-Socialist Committee,  otherwise  called  the  Com- 
mittee of  Twenty-five,  and  the  Society  of  the  Rights  of 
Man,  probably  some  of  their  members  had  been  preparing 
for  an  insurrection,  but  the  evidence  on  this  point  is  incon- 
clusive. Certainly  the  government  made  use  of  the  re- 
sistance which  it  knew  was  slight  and  unexpected  to  pretend 

'  Speech  of  June  3,  1874,  in  Discours  politiques  2 :  481. 

'  Discours  politiques  2:2,79-387.  For  details  see  Caiman,  Ledru-Rollin 
apres  1848,  41-3. 


^3l]  THE  GRAND  FIASCO  2>77 

that  there  had  been  a  great  insurrection;  certainly  it  mag- 
nified the  undecided  policy  of  the  Mountain  into  a  wide- 
spread conspiracy.  The  police  may  have  built  the  few  bar- 
ricades that  were  erected  and  may  have  defended  them  by 
means  of  agents  provocateurs,  but  that  is  uncertain. 

The  radical  and  liberal  newspapers,  all  of  which  had  shown 
their  hostility  to  the  attack  on  Rome,  continued  their  pro- 
gram of  opposition  to  the  government.  On  the  morning  of 
June  13  the  seven  great  radical  journals  published  the  pro- 
clamation drawn  up  the  previous  evening  by  the  Mountain  as 
well  as  one  signed  by  the  Committee  of  the  Republican  Press, 
the  Democratic-Socialist  Committee,  the  delegates  of  the 
Luxembourg,  and  the  Committee  of  the  Schools.  They 
also  published  a  circular  signed  by  Schmitz  and  other  mem- 
bers of  the  fifth  legion  of  the  National  Guard  and  a  letter 
of  Etienne  Arago  approving  the  stand  of  the  parliamentary 
opposition.  The  editorials  in  these  newspapers  violently 
denounced  the  actions  of  the  majority  in  the  Assembly  and 
vaguely  advocated  peaceful  opposition. 

About  half  past  nine  on  the  morning  of  the  thirteenth 
crowds  began  to  gather  at  the  Chateau  d'Eau  whence  the 
projected  procession  was  to  start.  Changarnier  in  a  public 
letter  a  little  later  claimed  that  as  early  as  June  10  he  had 
known  that  trouble  was  brewing.  If  that  was  so,  his 
logical  course  should  have  been  to  prevent  the  assembling 
of  the  crowd,  but  he  desired  a  personal  triumph  over  an 
insurrection  and  so  allowed  the  procession  to  form.  La- 
crosse, one  of  the  ministers,  crossed  the  square  in  front  of 
the  Chateau  d'Eau  and  was  jostled  by  the  hostile  crowd,  but 
Gent,  a  radical  who  had  been  a  member  of  the  Constituent 
Assembly,  prevented  any  violence  being  used  against  him. 
It  was  half  past  eleven  before  the  procession  started,  headed 
by  Etienne  Arago,  Schmitz,  and  Perrier  of  the  National 
Guard,    by   Bastide,    Gent,    and   Raynal,    former    deputies. 


^^8   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [532 

The  Mountain  took  no  part  in  this  manifestation.  The 
people  were  quiet  or  harmlessly  cheered  the  Mountain,  the 
constitution,  and  the  Roman  republic.  All  the  evidence 
points  to  the  peaceful  character  of  the  procession;  the  pre- 
sence of  former  deputies  of  the  left  centre,  such  as  Bastide 
and  Perrier,  was  not  compatible  with  an  uprising. 

The  procession  was  marching  along  laughing  when  sud- 
denly about  one  o'clock  Changarnier  issued  from  a  side 
street  at  the  head  of  his  troops  and  charged  the  procession. 
His  soldiers  and  gendarmes  slashed  right  and  left  in  an 
unnecessarily  cruel  manner.  The  people  could  not  disperse 
as  all  the  side  streets  were  thronged  w^ith  spectators.  Then 
and  then  only,  amid  the  disorder,  an  officer  in  a  low  voice 
read  the  riot  act.  The  policemen  and  soldiers  again  jostled 
the  unresisting  crowd  with  their  horses  and  attacked  it  with 
bayonets,  sabres,  clubs.  The  people  offered  no  resistance 
and  dispersed  as  quickly  as  they  could.  A  few  extremists 
cried:  To  Arms!  They  are  massacring  our  brothers!  But 
such  cries  were  few  and  scattered.  The  attack  of  Chan- 
garnier was  illegal  as  he  made  his  assault  before  reading 
the  riot  act.  It  was  unnecessary  as  the  manifestation  was 
peaceful  and  might  have  been  dispersed  before  it  formed  in 
marching  array.  The  attack  was  cruel  and  brutal ;  this  was 
evidenced  particularly  in  the  actions  of  a  gendarme  named 
Petit.  When  a  youth  thrown  down  by  the  onrush  of  the 
troops  bared  his  breast  and  in  a  melodramatic  frenzy  cried : 
"  Kill  me,"  Petit  slashed  at  the  boy  with  his  sabre.  For 
this  action  the  gendarme  was  not  dismissed  or  even  repri- 
manded; in  fact  a  little  later  he  even  received  promotion.'- 

The  procession  was  not  the  work  of  the  Mountain.     The 

^  For  accounts  of  the  procession  see  Ledru  in  Disconrs  politiques  2 : 
385-6;  Changarnier  in  Moniteur  for  1849,  p.  2103;  Ledru  trial  in  ibid., 
3115,  3206,  3163;  Herzen  60;  Ruge  2:  103.  Seze  in  Revolution  de  1848, 
10:  21-2;  Fonvielle  in  ihid.,  8:  469-475. 


^23]  THE  GRAND  FIASCO  379 

Mountain  approved  of  it  but  took  no  part  in  it.  Some  of 
the  deputies  had  gathered  during  the  morning  at  the  head- 
quarters in  the  Rue  du  Hasard.  Ledru  had  arrived  there 
a  Httle  after  eleven  o'clock/  Contradictory  news  was  con- 
tinually brought  in  during  the  morning  and  the  deputies  de- 
cided that  half  of  them  should  go  to  the  Assembly,  the  other 
half  should  remain  in  the  Rue  du  Hasard.  Many  of  them 
were  out  at  lunch  when  crowds  of  fugitives  were  heard 
rushing  down  the  neighboring  Rue  de  Richelieu  with  oc- 
casional cries  of  To  arms!  -  The  feelings  of  Ledru  at  this 
stage  he  himself  described  in  a  pamphlet :  "  At  the  sight  of 
these  bloody  acts  carried  out  under  the  very  window  of 
our  meeting-place,  I  remembered  the  words  of  General  Chan- 
garnier  spoken  the  previous  day :  /  shall  set  fire  to  the  city; 
I  remembered  clearly  the  two  decrees  already  issued  against 
the  press  and  the  artillery.  I  had  but  one  idea,  that  of  de- 
fending the  consititution  in  the  midst  of  the  people."  "  Thus 
apparently,  at  this  point  Ledru  decided  to  throw  in  his  lot 
with  the  people;  as  yet  he  had  no  thought  of  armed  resist- 
ance— ^probably  Considerant's  plan  for  a  rump  parliament 
was  uppermost  in  his  mind.  This  meant  a  defiance  of  the 
existing  authorities  but  neither  the  use  of  force  nor  a  secret 
conspiracy,  an  impossible  position. 

One  thing  was  decided  on  by  the  Mountain;  the  Rue  du 

^Affaire  du  13  Juin  i :  551.  A  lieutenant  in  the  National  Guard  who 
was  collecting  contributions  for  one  of  his  injured  soldiers  had  been 
told  that  Ledru  would  be  sure  to  contribute.  On  the  evening  of  June  12 
he  called  at  Ledru's  home  in  the  Rue  de  Tournon,  but  a  valet  told  him 
that  his  master  was  out.  The  lieutenant  returned  at  half-past  ten  the 
next  morning  and  was  told  that  Ledru  was  busy.  The  neighbors  were 
surprised  that  he  had  failed  to  receive  a  donation  from  Ledru. — Ihid.,  i : 
520. 

2  St.  Ferreol :  Mcmoircs  2:191;  Commissaire  244-5;  Ledru  trial  in 
Moniteur  for  1849,  pp.  3209,  3222. 

^  Discours  politiques  2  :  386.     Cf.  Commissaire  245. 


-^So   LEDRU-ROLLIX  AXD  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [534 

Hasard  was  not  a  safe  place  in  which  to  dehberate.  "  To 
the  Conservatory  of  Arts  and  Trades!"  cried  some  one. 
Ledru  took  up  the  cry,  and  the  Montagnards  started  off  for 
the  Conservatory  in  order  to  have  amid  the  people  a  refuge 
in  which  to  deliberate.  Common  sense  told  them  that  it 
was  not  a  stronghold  to  defend.^ 

They  wished,  however,  to  have  some  protection  against 
the  attack  they  expected,  and  accordingly  they  went  to  the 
neighboring  Palais  National  ^  where  the  National  Guard 
artillery  under  Guinard  was  quartered.  Guinard  was  a  con- 
vinced republican,  a  Montagnard  member  of  the  Constituent, 
but  an  opponent  of  violence.  He  had  been  adjutant  to 
Courtais,  former  commander  of  the  National  Guard,  and 
w^as  now  head  of  the  National  Guard  artillery.  This  artillery 
had  been  disbanded  that  morning,  but  Guinard,  fearing  a 
coup  d'etat,  had  disregarded  the  order.  Ledru  and  ten  col- 
leagues entered  the  garden  of  the  Palais  National  about  two 
o'clock  in  the  afternoon.  "  As  soon  as  I  heard  that  Ledru 
was  in  the  garden,"  said  Guinard  later, 

I  took  him  by  the  arm  and  entered  my  office.  We  talked 
together  for  a  very  short  time.  I  felt  as  he  did,  that  there 
was  an  attempt  to  violate  the  constitution.  No  more  than  I 
did  he  need  to  decide  on  his  part.  ...  I  thought  that  Ledru- 
Rollin  went  to  the  Conserv^atory  because  he  was  convinced 
....  that  the  constitution  had  been  violated,  that  the 
authorities  themselves,  by  charging  a  body  of  citizens  without 
having  first  legally  summoned  them  to  disperse,  began  the 
insurrection.  The  first  idea  was  to  remain  at  the  Palais 
National,  but  near  by  was  a  large  division  of  the  regular  army. 
All  defense  was  impossible  at  the  Palais  National.  We  feared 
the  possibility  of  having  to  defend  the  republic.     We  wished 

^  Discoiirs  poUtiques  2:386;  Boch  at  Ledru  trial,  Monitcur  for  1849, 
PP-  3143,  3239- 
*  Now  the  Palais  Royal. 


^35]  THE  GRAND  FIASCO  381 

to  place  ourselves  in  the  midst  of  a  population  whose  loyalty 
to  the  republic  had  been  proved.  .  .  .  We  went  to  the  Con- 
servatory to  consult  and  to  learn  what  would  result  from  the 
events  that  had  already  happened.  I  say  with  all  frankness 
that  we  did  not  intend  to  incite  an  insurrection. 

Thus  there  was  as  yet  no  intention  to  cause  an  uprising  al- 
though there  was  the  intention  of  resisting  the  illegal  acts 
of  the  legal  authorities.  There  was  to  be  no  offensive  war 
on  the  government,  but  there  might  be  a  defensive  one.^ 

Guinard  and  the  deputies  of  the  Mountain  entered  the 
garden  of  the  Palais  National.  "  I  assembled  the  few 
artillerymen  who  were  in  the  garden,"  continued  Guinard  in 
his  account.  "  I  explained  to  them  the  situation  as  it  was 
known  to  me,  and  I  asked  them  whether  they  wished  to 
take  under  their  protection  the  members  of  the  National 
Assembly.  On  their  replying  in  the  affirmative  I  gave  the 
sign  for  departure.  I  declare  in  the  most  positive  way  that 
nobody  but  myself  made  a  speech.  Ledru-RoUin  said  noth- 
ing. ...  I  deny  that  I  urged  the  artillerymen  to  overturn 
the  government.  I  merely  took  under  my  protection  the 
members  of  the  National  Assembly  who  appeared  to  be 
threatened."  ^  A  proof  that  the  artillerymen  left  with  no 
intention  of  taking  part  in  an  insurrection  is  the  fact  that 
they  did  not  arm  the  mob  that  accompanied  them  with  the 
weapons  in  the  Palais  National.^ 

The  artillerymen  formed  a  line  on  each  side  of  the  street 
and  between  them  marched  the  representatives  four  abreast. 

1  Guinard  at  Ledru  trial,  Monitcur  for  1849,  pp.  3143-4.  Cf.  other 
witnesses,  ibid.,  3229,  3239-3241,  3325;  Affaire  du  13  Juin  1:15;  Ranc 
46-7. 

*  Monitcur  for  1849,  pp.  3143-4.  Cf.  other  witnesses,  ibid.,  322^,  3240-2. 
The  government  declared  that  Ledru  made  a  speech  in  the  garden  but  it 
produced  no  witnesses  to  this  fact  at  his  trial  and  those  heard  at  the 
preliminary  examinations  had  only  second-hand  information. 

^  Guinard  in  Monitcur  for  1849,  p.  3228. 


.Sj    LEDRU-ROLLIN  and  second  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [536 

In  front  were  Guinard,  Ledru  and  Deville,  arm  in  arm. 
They  passed  several  small  military  posts  without  paying 
any  attention  to  them.  There  were  continual  shouts  for  the 
constitution  and  the  republic,  interspersed  with  some  for  the 
Roman  republic,  the  Mountain,  and  Ledru-Rollin,  and  an 
occasional  Down  with  Changarnier!  or  To  Arms!  Probably 
about  sixty  representatives,  three  hundred  artillerymen,  and 
a  mob  of  a  thousand  civilians  left  the  Palais  National,  but 
their  numbers  decreased  as  they  marched  along.^  On  the 
way,  said  Considerant  later  in  a  pamphlet,  "  we  repeated  to 
each  other  that  out  role  was  traced,  that  it  was  no  time  to 
deliberate,  that  we  should  avoid  a  call  to  arms,  that  we  should 
place  ourselves  at  the  head  of  the  manifestation  and  re- 
ceive there,  if  necessary,  the  charge  of  bayonets  and  the 
rifle  fire."  ' 

When  the  deputies  reached  the  Conservatory,  they  de- 
clared :  "  We  are  representatives  and  we  wish  to  enter."  ' 
The  few  soldiers  in  this  public  building  were  not  numerous 
enough  to  resist,  and  they  permitted  the  deputies  to  enter 
with  their  escort.  Ledru  and  Guinard  went  into  the  second 
courtyard  where  they  met  Pouillet,  the  director  of  the  Con- 
servatory, who  had  left  his  office  as  soon  as  he  heard  of 
their  arrival.     Pouillet's  story  is  as  follows; 

"  Arrived  there,  I  saw  before  me  ....  a  group  of  deputies  in 
scarfs  and  full  insignia,  and  behind  them  in  the  first  court- 
yard, the  red  plumes  of  the  National  Guard  artillery,  hats  and 
caps  bearing  the  level  card,  symbol  of  the  Society  of  the  Rights 
of  Man,  and  above  all  a  forest  of  bayonets,  disorder,  and  great 
agitation."     There  were  four  hundred  who  entered  and  were 

'Guinard  and  other  witnesses,  ibid.,  3225,  3238-3246;  Ranc  46-7;  St. 
Ferreol,  Memoires  2 :  192-3. 
'  Considerant  33. 
'  Ledru  trial,  Moniteur  for  1849,  pp.  3247,  3278. 


^37]  ^^S  GRAND  FIASCO  383 

in  the  Boulevard  St.  Martin.  "  I  arrived  before  the  group  of 
deputies  and  soon  by  his  attitude,  by  his  lofty  stature,  I  re- 
cognized the  leader  of  the  Mountain.  ...  It  was  to  him  that 
I  addressed  myself.  .  .  . 

"  '  What  do  you  want?  ' 

" '  An  asylum.' 

"  '  This  establishment  is  the  asylum  of  science  and  peace,  not 
of  war.     Go  elsewhere  with  your  banner.' 

"  '  We  are  being  tracked  and  sabred  in  the  boulevards  and 
in  the  streets.' 

"  '  The  Conservatory  will  not  save  you ;  it  will  be  fatal  to 
you.' 

"  'In  the  streets  we  would  be  massacred.' 

"  '  Here  you  will  be  enveloped,  assailed  from  all  sides  with- 
out possible  defense.' 

"  '  Time  presses,  we  wish  to  deliberate ;  have  you  a  room 
for  us  ? ' 

"  You  have  forced  your  way  in.  Alone  against  you  and 
your  army  I  have  only  my  words  with  which  to  oppose  you. 
If  you  do  not  believe  them,  if  you  will  not  see  your  peril,  come 
and  I  will  open  up  a  room  for  you.'  "  ^ 

Guinard  and  Ledru  returned  to  the  first  court.  A  corporal 
who  was  stationed  there  testified  later :  "  A  man  of  fine 
appearance  with  a  black  beard  put  his  hand  on  my  shoulder 
and  said :  Do  no  be  afraid,  corporal;  no  harm  will  come 
to  you. .  .It  is  Ledru-Rollin  zvho  is  talking  to  you."  ~  Other 
deputies  had  gone  in  search  of  a  plan  of  the  building."'' 

Pouillet  had  opened  up  the  old  amphitheatre  for  the  de- 
puties, but  this   room  did  not  suit  them.     The  new  am- 

1  Pouillet  5-6.  Cf.  Considerant  33-6;  Guinard  and  Pouillet  in  Moni- 
tcur  for  1849,  pp.  3144,  3277,  3544.  For  good  secondary  account  of 
events  at  the  Conservatory,  see  Castille  4:  109-118.  The  account  in 
Barrot  3 :  200-2  is  naturally  inexact. 

*  Crance  in  Monitcur  3277. 

^  Ibid.,  3277. 


384  LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [538 

phitheatre  was  refused  them ;  consequently  after  the  director 
had  left,  they  forced  their  way  into  the  Spinning  Room 
{Salle  des  Filatures) }  "  Near  the  entrance  to  this  room," 
testified  Dupin,  Pouillet's  secretary,  "  was  a  small  table  which 
was  being  used  by  various  people,  secretaries  who  were 
writing,  others  who  were  giving  orders.  M.  Ledru-Rollin 
was  very  close  to  this  table.  He  gesticulated,  he  seemed 
quite  worried,  he  looked  like  a  sick  man."  - 

There  were  at  least  fifty-seven  deputies  present  at  the 
Conserv^atory.  Of  these  Ledru-Rollin,  Martin  Bernard, 
Considerant,  and  twenty-five  others  were  later  prosecuted  for 
insurrection;  the  presence  of  Michel  de  Bourges  and  the 
others  was  unknown  to  the  government.^  h.  proclamation 
was  later  produced  supposed  to  have  been  drawn  up  at  this 
meeting.  It  said :  "  To  the  French  people,  the  National 
Guard,  and  the  army :  The  constitution  has  been  violated,  the 
people  are  rising  to  defend  it,  the  Mountain  is  at  its  post. 
Hurrah  for  the  constitution !  "  The  proclamation  was  dated : 
"  At  the  Conserv^atorv^  of  Arts  and  Trades  at  two  o'clock." 
The  authenticity  of  this  document  is  doubtful. 

The  reasons  for  considering  it  authentic  are  various. 
Commissaire,  one  of  the  deputies  present,  says  in  his 
memoirs : 

Ledru-Rollin,  Michel  and  Considerant  were  the  three  most 
influential  persons  present;  they  formed  a  group  apart.  A 
little  later  they  decided  to  post  a  call  to  arms.  Ledru-Rollin 
wrote  the  appeal  with  a  pencil.  The  paper  was  placed  inside 
his  hat.  .  .  .  Most  of  those  who  were  at  the  'Consen^atory 
were  ignorant  of  the  call  to  arms;  no  one  signed  it.     Ledru- 

^  Pouillet  7-10. 

*  Moniteur  3279. 

*  For  lists  of  those  present,  see  St.  Ferreol,  Proscrits  i :  46-7 ;  St.  Fer- 
reol,  Memoires  2 :  197.  Gambon  and  Pyat,  although  not  present,  were 
also  prosecuted. 


539]  ^^^  GRAND  FIASCO  385 

Rollin  told  the  person  who  was  to  print  it  that  the  names  of 
those  who  had  signed  the  impeachment  of  the  ministers  should 
be  affixed.^ 

St.  Ferreol,  another  deputy  present,   says  in  his  memoirs : 

Michel  de  Bourges  drew  up  a  proclamation  on  a  page  torn 
from  Jules  Maigne's  note-book,  and  this  proclamation  at  the 
foot  of  which  were  placed  the  names  of  all  the  deputies  pre- 
sent— who  did  not  need  to  sign  it — was  sent  to  the  newspapers 
which  it  reached  too  late.- 

In  a  letter  seized  later  Rolland  and  five  other  deputies  told 
the  people  of  Chalon-sur-Saone  of  the  events  at  Paris  and 
added :  "  We  are  drawing  up  a  proclamation  to  call  the 
people  to  arms."  Three  deputies  wrote  to  Chalon  and  to 
Grenoble  calling  on  the  citizens  to  rise  in  revolt.' 

There  are,  however,  several  reasons  for  doubting  the 
authenticity  of  this  proclamation.  First,  the  account  of  Com- 
missaire  and  St.  Ferreol  do  not  agree  as  to  who  wrote  it 
and  as  to  whose  names  were  affixed.  In  fact,  as  regards 
the  latter  point,  neither  was  right.  The  names  of  twenty- 
six  of  those  who  had  signed  the  impeachment  petition  were 
not  appended,  and  the  name  of  one  man  who  had  not  signed 
was  added.  The  list  of  signatories  included  many  who 
were  not  present  at  the  Conservatory.  As  to  Rolland,  he  as 
well  as  many  other  deputies,  denied  having  signed  the  pro- 
clamation, although  in  this  he  may  have  quibbled,  for  no 
one  claimed  that  he  wrote  his  signature.  Again  the  pro- 
clamation is  dated  "  at  two  o'clock,"  but  the  deputies  did 
not  arrive  at  the  Conservatory  until  nearly  three  o'clock. 
Of  course  this  may  have  been  an  oversight  on  the  part  of 
whoever  drew  up  the  document.     Then  the  "  insurgents  " 

'  Commissaire  i :  245-6. 

'  St.  Ferreol,  Memoires  2 :  194. 

*  Ledru  trial,  Moniteur  for  1849,  p.  3145. 


^35   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REP UBLIC    [  540 

did  not  act  in  conformity  with  the  proclamation;  they  op- 
posed firing  on  the  government  forces  when  they  arrived. 
Still  there  is  the  possibility  that  they  acted  thus  because  there 
was  no  chance  of  a  successful  defense  or  because  they  wished 
the  good  will  of  the  army.  The  strongest  evidence  against 
the  authenticity  of  the  proclamation  is  the  statement  made 
a  few  months  later  by  Considerant ;  "  I  did  not  see  the  pro- 
clamation said  to  have  been  seized,  and  I  swear,  as  I  was 
beside  Ledru-Rollin  or  near  him  all  the  time,  that  he  did  not 
see  it  either."  ^  This  would  seem  decisive,  but  Considerant 
may  have  lied  to  save  his  friends  who  were  in  prison  or  he 
may  have  been  absent  a  moment  while  the  proclamation  was 
being  written. 

Thus  the  evidence  is  conflicting  as  to  the  authenticity  of 
the  proclamation.  It  may  be — although  this  is  a  pure  hypo- 
thesis— that  a  proclamation  calling  on  the  people  to  defend 
the  Mountain  but  not  inciting  them  to  insurrection  was 
drawn  up  b}^  the  leaders,  a  proclamation  different  from  that 
seized  by  the  government.  Such  a  proceeding  would  have 
been  in  line  with  the  peculiar  policy  of  a  defensive  war 
against  the  authorities,  the  policy  earlier  adopted  by  the 
Mountain. 

Whether  or  not  a  proclamation  had  been  drawn  up,  the 
deputies  in  the  Conservatory  took  no  actual  measures  of 
defense.  In  times  of  revolt  it  was  the  common  practice 
in  Paris  to  build  barricades.  But  to  this  the  Montagnard 
leaders  were  opposed.  Guinard  asserted  later:  "I  had 
given  the  most  positive  orders  to  prevent  the  construction 
of  barricades.  I  told  my  officers  to  treat  as  enemies  of  the 
republic  all  who  tried  to  erect  any."  In  fact  he  prevented 
the  raising  of  several.^     There  were  no  barricades  within 

'  Considerant  36. 

-Moniteur  3144-5.     Cf.  ibid.,  3140,  3310. 


241  ]  THE  GRAND  FIASCO  387 

the  Conservatory.  Outside  in  the  Rue  St.  Martin  a  group 
of  workingmen  built  one,  but  the  artillerymen  did  not  aid 
them.  In  the  Rue  des  Gravilliers,  some  distance  off,  the 
workingmen  had  been  persuaded  to  demolish  the  one  they 
were  in  process  of  constructing.^ 

Ledru  had  hoped  that  a  part  of  the  National  Guard  would 
demonstrate  in  his  favor,  and  he  relied  particularly  on  a 
certain  Colonel  Forestier.  He  became  impatient  and  re- 
marked: "  Why  doesn't  Forestier  come?  "  Suchet,  a  deputy, 
offered  to  go  to  the  office  of  the  colonel  and  induce  him  to 
parade  with  his  troops.  Suchet  was  arrested  before  he 
reached  Forestier.  The  colonel  himself  had  hestitated  as  to 
what  course  to  take.  Finally  he  decided  to  march  through 
the  streets  with  his  troops.  Before  he  had  gone  far  he  was 
arrested  without  difficulty.  The  government  later  claimed 
that  Suchet  had  wished  to  urge  an  attack  on  the  army, 
but  all  the  evidence  points  to  a  desire  on  his  part,  as  well  as 
on  that  of  Forestier  and  Ledru,  for  a  mere  show  of  force  to 
prevent  Louis  Napoleon  from  making  a  coup  d'etat.  The 
Colonel  was  acquitted  of  the  charge  of  insurrection;  conse- 
quently the  government's  claim  that  beforehand  Ledru- 
Rollin  and  the  Mountain  had  planned  an  uprising  with 
Forestier  as  military  commander  falls  to  the  ground.' 

Pouillet,  director  of  the  Conservatory,  had  been  wander- 
ing about,  watching  the  National  Guardsmen,  the  people,  and 
the  unarmed  leaders  of  the  Society  for  the  Rights  of  Man. 
At  last  he  accosted  Guinard  and  urged  him  to  leave  the 
Conservatory  since  it  was  untenable ;  he  pointed  out  its  lack 
of  strategic  importance  as  well  as  the  facts  that  it  was 
dominated  by  the  buildings  opposite  and  that  its  walls  were 
weak.     Guinard   consented   to   accompany   him   to   Ledru, 

1  Moniteur  3145-6,  3158. 

*  Ledru  trial,  Moniteur  for  184Q,  pp.  31 17,  3158,   3278-9,   3309,   3325, 
3455 ;  Changarnier  in  Moniteur  2103, 


-.gS   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [542 

whom  they  found  in  the  Spinning  Room.  "  I  accosted  M. 
Ledru-Rolhn."  said  Pouillet  in  his  account, 

and  in  a  loud  voice  repeated  to  him  and  to  the  group  around 
him  the  same  thought  and  perhaps  the  same  words  that  I  had 
just  used  to  Colonel  Guinard.  .  .  .  My  conviction  was  as 
strong  as  ever;  in  fact  from  minute  to  minute  the  likelihood 
of  an  outbreak  of  hostilities  seemed  to  me  to  be  growing 
greater.  ...  I  can  affirm  that  the  deputies  began  immediately 
to  deliberate  on  the  question  as  to  whether  they  should  leave 
the  Conservatory  or  remain  there.  .  .  .  The  deliberation  was 
neither  regular  nor  solemn.  It  was  a  conflict  of  opinions  and 
contradictory  assertions,  an  indescribable  confusion.  Nobody 
demanded  the  floor,  everybody  took  it. 

Pouillet  himself  tried  to  convince  individual  deputies  of  the 
advantage  of  quitting  the  Conservatory,  and  he  won  Con- 
siderant  over  to  his  side.  A  quarter  of  an  hour  was  wasted 
in  debate  while  a  committee  of  five  deliberated  in  secret  as  to 
whether  or  not  a  government  should  be  formed  at  the  Con- 
servatory. All  was  still  undecided  when  shots  were  heard 
outside. '^ 

Changarnier  had  sent  two  regiments  against  the  Conserva- 
tor}^  A  few  scattered  shots  were  fired  at  them,  but  the 
deputies  tried  to  prevent  all  resistance.  The  ]\Iontagnard, 
Boch,  cried:  "Don't  fire."  The  artillerymen  held  the 
stocks  of  their  muskets  in  the  air.  But  the  regular  troops 
steadily  advanced  and  entered  the  Conservatory.  There 
was  no  organized  defense  on  the  part  of  those  inside  and 
no  attempt  to  make  one."  Neither  did  the  deputies  wish  to 
flee.  "  There  was  so  little  thought  of  flight,"  said  Deville, 
a  deputy,  later,  "  that  we  all  went  up  to  the  troops,  Ledru- 

^  Pouillet  10-16. 

*  Moniteur  for  1849,  pp.  2103,  3 141,  3143,  322^.    Commissaire  249  claims 
that  there  was  no  resistance  onlj^  because  there  was  no  time  to  organize 


^43]  THE  GRAND  FIASCO  389 

Rollin  at  our  head.  The  Artillery  held  their  muskets  re- 
versed and  were  cheering  the  republic  and  the  constitu- 
tion." ^ 

When  the  first  detachment  of  troops  entered  the  Con- 
servatory, Ledru  left  Guinard  to  whom  he  was  talking  and 
advanced  a  few  steps.  He  addressed  a  few  words  to  the 
captain  in  command,  but  the  captain  was  angry  or  drunk. 
He  disregarded  Ledru  and  said  to  the  deputies :  "  Line  your- 
selves against  the  wall;  we  are  going  to  shoot  you  with 
your  arms  in  your  hands."  One  of  the  the  deputies  mounted 
a  table  and  wished  to  make  an  address  to  prevent  the  firing. 
The  captain  seized  him  by  his  official  scarf  and  pulled  him 
down,  saying  that  he  did  not  recognize  that  badge." 

Ledru  in  a  pamphlet  thus  described  the  scene :  "  We  saw 
death  very  close,  I  and  my  friends.  Lined  up  against  a  wall 
without  arms  or  means  of  defense,  we  were  placed  six  paces 
from  the  muskets  of  a  half -company  which  had  already 
taken  aim  and  awaited  only  the  final  command.  The  of- 
ficer, drunk  with  passion  and  with  wine  (say  several  witnes- 
ses), lifted  his  sword  to  give  the  death  order  when  a  superior 
officer  galloped  up  and  had  barely  time  to  order  the  guns  to 
be  lowered.  They  arc  prisoners  he  said;  if  they  move,  Hre 
on  them  immediately.  A  moment  more  and  we  should  have 
fallen,  assassinated  without  provocation,  without  warning, 
without  explanation,  without  trial,  like  a  herd  butchered  in  a 
slaughter  house.  Well,  at  that  supreme  and  tragic  moment 
did  a  single  one  of  those  men  flinch?  Did  any  one  of 
them  traffic  for  his  life  by  supplications  or  buy  his  body  with 
his  honour?  Who  then  are  the  cowards,  those  who  did  not 
pale  under  the  shadow  of  death  or  those  who  insulted  them 
the  next  day,  prudently  protected  behind  the  bulwark  of  a 
state  of  siege?     No,  no,  during  that  day  of  sacrifices  I  did 

^  Monitcur  3280.     Cf.  ibid.,  3279 ;  Considerant  2Q. 
^  Monitetir  3145,  3280,  3304. 


,gO   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [544 

not  forget  for  one  moment  that  of  all  the  deputies  I  was 
the  one  that  France  had  honoured  with  the  most  votes."  ^ 

Thus  the  deputies  of  the  Mountain  were  saved  from 
being  shot  by  the  timely  arrival  of  a  superior  officer.  Ledru 
said  to  him :  "  Major,  is  it  possible  that  orders  have  been 
given  to  shoot  unarmed  men?"  The  major  ordered  the 
threatening  guns  to  be  lowered.^  At  this  point  Colonel 
Alphonse  arrived;  Guinard  and  Ledru  spoke  to  him. 
Guinard  said  "  You  can  regard  us  as  your  prisoners. 
Ledru-Rollin  and  I  answer  for  all  the  citizens  here."  Al- 
phonse nodded  assent.  Was  this  a  promise  to  remain  in 
the  Conservatory?  Alphonse  so  conceived  it,  but  Guinard 
did  not,^  and  Ledru  said  later :  "  I  did  not  give  my  parole."  * 
The  leader  of  the  Mountain  can  hardly  be  blamed  for  not 
considering  that  this  speech  by  Guinard  bound  him  not  to 
escape. 

At  this  juncture  for  some  unexplained  reason  the  soldiers 
withdrew  from  the  Conservatory;  the  Mountain  and  it  de- 
fenders had  absolute  control  within.  Already  many  of  the 
deputies  and  citizens  had  escaped  by  breaking  the  windows, 
jumping  out  of  them,  and  then  departing  through  the  garden 
and  the  unguarded  rear  gates.  Deville  insisted  on  staying 
in  the  first  courtyard;  others  agreed  with  him.  "  We  will 
all  stay,"  said  Ledru.  The  importance  of  his  escape  was 
pointed  out,  but  still  Ledru  resisted.  Then  Pilhes  seized 
him  by  the  arm  and  forced  him  bodily  into  the  building; 
further  Ledru  would  not  flee.^     Soon  the  first  courtyard 

^  Discours  politiques  2  :  367-8. 

'  Moniteur  for  1849,  pp.  3310,  3323. 

'  Ibid.,  3222-3.    Cf.  Guinard  in  Messager  du  Nord,  June  26. 

*  Discours  politiques  2:  368. 

'^Revolution  de  1848,   17:48;   cf.  Moniteur  3279;    Pouillet   16-9;    St. 
Ferreol,  Memoires  2 :  194. 


545]  THE  GRAND  FIASCO  391 

was  reoccupied  by  the  troops.     Deville  and  five  other  de- 
puties, who  had  remained  there,  were  made  prisoners. 

"  Here  we  are,  absolute  prisoners,"  said  Considerant  who 
was  wandering  through  the  building  with  Ledru-Rollin, 
Martin  Bernard,  and  Guinard. 

"  Let  us  wait  and  talk;  we  have  nothing  better  to  do,"  re- 
plied Ledru. 

"  Do  you  understand  why  they  let  everyone  go  out  and 
why  they  leave  us  alone  and  masters  of  the  interior  ?  " 

"  I  understand  nothing.  We  heard  some  further  gun- 
shots.    Perhaps  they  expect  an  attack  from  outside." 

By  this  time  the  four  men  were  alone.  "  Truly,"  re- 
marked Considerant,  "  the  building  has  other  exits  and  we 
are  masters  in  it.  Why  not  leave?  Let  us  look  at  the 
rear  exits."     And  he  and  Martin  Bernard  departed.'- 

Soon  after  Ledru  also  left.  Guinard  conducted  him 
through  various  passages  to  a  side  door  which  led  to  the 
garden.  There  they  separated.^  "  Ledru  did  not  escape 
through  a  window  as  was  falsely  reported,  but  he  left  by  a 
door  opening  on  the  garden.  .  .  .  That  door  was  opened  by 
a  laboratory  boy  named  Peugnot,  who  later  became  con- 
cierge of  that  famous  establishment."  ^  Dupin,  the  secre- 
tary of  Pouillet,  is  responsible  for  the  famous  story  of  how 
Ledru  squeezed  through  a  casement  window  (vasistas), 
dropped  to  the  ground,  and  was  then  guided  by  himself, 
Dupin,  to  the  gate.*     This  story  should  be  put  to  sleep 

^  Considerant  44. 

^  Guinard  in  Moniteur  3278-9  and  in  Messager  du  Nord,  June  26 ;  St. 
Ferreol,  Memoires  2 :  195. 

^  Fonvielle  in  Revolution  de  184S,  8 :  473. 

■*  Moniteur  2279.  Corroboratory  statement  by  Coeur  Desvoy  in  ibid., 
3545.  Dupin's  chief  point  in  upholding  his  story  against  the  denial  of 
Guinard  and  others  was  that  the  door  to  the  garden  was  locked,  but  we 
have  seen  that  it  was  opened  by  Peugnot. 


,Q2   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [546 

forever  by  the  following  statement :  "  Signard  escaped  by 
tJie  famous  z'asistas  of  which  there  was  so  much  talk  on 
the  occasion  of  the  flight  of  Ledru-Rollin.  Signard  was 
mistaken  for  Ledru,  owing  to  the  fact  that  they  had  similar 
figures  and  were  both  stout.  Now,  the  truth  is  that  Ledru 
left  only  at  the  end  of  the  manifestation  and  by  a  door 
under  the  very  eyes  of  the  officials,  "who  let  him  pass, 
whereas  Signard  and  others  got  away  as  best  they  could 
by  a  broken  window."  Ledru-Rollin,  who  knew  the  truth, 
let  the  reactionary  papers  calumniate  him,^  probably  because 
he  did  not  wish  to  reveal  to  the  government  the  presence  of 
Signard  at  the  Conservatory.  The  matter  in  itself  is  not 
of  great  importance,  but  the  picture  of  the  fat  orator  squeez- 
ing through  a  small  opening  was  long  a  mine  of  satire  for 
the  conserv^atives,  who  dubbed  the  members  of  the  Mountain 
Compirateurs  du  Hasard  -  and  Ledru-Rollin  Vasistas  I, 
King  of  Window-panes.^  The  ridicule  also  affected  the 
republicans.  Thus  Lamber,  the  father  of  Juliette  Adam, 
was  disgusted  not  at  the  failure  but  at  the  "  hesitating  and 
ridiculous  role  played  by  the  last  two  champions  of  his 
ideas."  ^ 

As  soon  as  Ledru  emerged  from  the  garden  of  the  Con- 
servatory he  was  recognized  and  surrounded  by  a  crowd 
who  shouted:  "  Here  is  our  leader;  here  is  Ledru-Rollin." 
Ledru  tried  to  silence  them.  A  short  deliberation  was  held 
and  then  Ledru,  together  with  Considerant  and  Martin  Ber- 
nard who  had  joined  him,  walked  off  in  the  direction  of  the 
Madelonettes  prison,  accompanied  by  five  or  six  civilians. 
The  director  of  the  prison  had  received  favors  in  the  past 

^  Joigneaux  2 :  2^. 

*  Conspirators    of    Fortune.      Remember    the    Mountain    headquarters 
were  in  the  Rue  du  Hasard. 

*  Seurre  2:  321. 

*  Adam  ZZZ- 


247]  THE  GRAND  FIASCO  393 

from  Ledru-Rollin  and  therefore  came  up  to  express  his 
sympathy  and  to  give  advice  as  to  how  to  avoid  the  govern- 
ment patrols.  He  strongly  urged  Ledru-R^oUin  and  his 
friends  to  proceed  along  the  unguarded  Rue  Vertbois.  He 
later  testified:  "  M.  Ledru-Rollin  had  his  coat  on  his  arm; 
his  clothes  were  not  in  disorder,  and  he  wore  a  black  felt 
hat."  ' 

Considerant  later  thus  described  the  flight : 

We  had  not  gone  sixty  yards  before  we  were  recognized  at 
every  step  and  saluted  by  spontaneous  and  enthusiastic  vivats. 
Three  times  I  was  obliged  to  dismiss  a  compromising  escort, 
and  twice  we  had  to  change  our  direction  or  retrace  our  steps 
in  order  not  to  run  into  the  cordon  of  troops.  IVe  must  seek 
shelter  in  some  house,  said  Ledru-Rollin  to  me.  Within  five 
minutes  we  would  have  run  into  some  patrol  and  could  have 
been  arrested  and  a  conflict  would  have  resulted.  The  un- 
known friends  who  were  with  us  saw  that  it  was  necessary  to 
act.  Our  tranquil  gait  and  composed  features  had  so  far  de- 
ceived everyone  as  to  our  situation.  We  took  counsel  together. 
While  our  friends  were  talking  with  Ledru  ....  a  youth  of 
fifteen  or  sixteen  approached  me. 

The  youth  took  Considerant  to  a  place  of  safety.' 

As  a  result  of  the  discussion  between  Ledru  and  his  com- 
panions, Martin  Bernard  went  up  to  a  woman  and  asked 
permission  to  use  her  rooms  temporarily.  The  woman 
consulted  with  her  husband  and  then  refused.  The  husband 
had  recognized  Ledru  whom  he  later  described:  "  He  had  a 
package  under  his  arm  and  wore  a  large  brim  hat;  he  was 
an  imposing  figure."  ^  According  to  the  Evcnement,  the 
wife  of  an  insurgent  who  had  been  transported  after  the 

^Moniteur  for  1849,  p.  3341.     Cf.  ibid.,  3343,  3345. 

*  Considerant  44. 

*  Moniteur  for  1849,  p.  3324. 


.,t)4   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [548 

June  Days  offered  Ledru  a  refuge,  but  Ledru  declined  it  and 
continued  on  down  the  Rue  Vertbois.  He  was  not  dis- 
guised and  walked  along  tranquilly.'^  After  this  we  lose 
sight  of  him.  Somewhere  or  other  in  Paris  he  found  a 
safe  hiding  place  for  that  night. 

Thus  without  any  resistance  the  so-called  headquarters 
of  the  insurrection  were  captured.  Colonel  Guinard  had 
remained  some  time  after  Ledru's  departure,  had  conversed 
quietly  with  Pouillet,  and  had  finally  gone  home  where  he 
was  arrested  the  next  morning.  In  all  Paris  only  three 
barricades  had  been  constructed  and  three  more  started; 
these  had  been  easily  captured.  Colonel  Forestier  had  of- 
fered no  resistance  when  he  was  arrested." 

It  is  thus  clear  that  there  was  no  organized  resistance  to 
the  government  on  June  13,  The  leaders  of  the  Mountain 
had  no  intention  of  causing  an  uprising  and  had  made  no 
plans  for  one.  The  few  arms  that  were  within  reach  were 
not  even  taken.  The  arms  at  the  Palais  National  remained  in 
the  armory.  A  small  amount  of  ammunition  for  hunting 
was  left  at  Ledru's  country  house,  not  brought  to  Paris. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  conduct  of  General  Changarnier  on 
this  day  should  sully  his  name  foreover.  He  attacked  an 
unarmed  procession  for  no  cause,  illegally,  and  with  useless 
cruelty.  He  talked  much  about  putting  down  a  great  revolt 
whereas  nowhere  did  he  meet  resistance.  The  Bonapartists 
exaggerated  this  little  disturbance  and  lied  about  its  size. 
Very  possibly  they  instigated  what  little  fighting  there  was. 

As  to  the  leaders  of  the  Mountain,  it  is  hard  to  decide 
whether  or  not  to  blame  them  for  their  actions  on  June  13. 
They  saw  that  the  executive  was  ready  to  defy  the  constitu- 
tion  in   its   own   interest.     They   saw   that   the   legislative 

^  Evenement,  June  21,  1849. 

^  'Ledru  trial,  Moniteur  for  1849,  p.  3117;  Changarnier's  account  in 
ibid.,  2103. 


r^o]  THE  GRAND  FIASCO  395 

majority,  partly  accomplice,  partly  blind,  would  acquiesce  in. 
any  measures  against  its  opponents.     They  were  unwilling 
to  revolt  but  desired  to  protest.     Now  this  middle  course 
is  almost  impossible  to  hold.     Step  by  step  they  were  driven 
on.     First   protests    from  the  tribune,   then   impeachment, 
then  Considerant's  idea  of  a  rump  parliament,  then  willing- 
ness to  defend  themselves  by  arms  against  the  illegal  attacks 
of  the  legal  authorities.     The  difference  between  this  last 
attitude  and  insurrection  is  difficult  to  show  although  there 
certainly  is  a  theoretical  difference.     Possibly  at  the  Con- 
servatory the  leaders  of  the  Mountain  decided  on  insurrec- 
tion although  it  seems  more  likely  that  they  did  not ;  without 
doubt  they  had  no  intention  to  revolt  when  they  left  the  Rue 
du  Hasard,  and  if  they  did  come  to  such  a  decision  later  in 
the  day,  they  had  no  time  to  carry  it  out  in  the  slightest  de- 
gree.    Not  a  shot  did  they  fire  against  the  troops  of  the 
legal  authorities.     The  Mountain  was  forever  ruined  on  that 
day,  but  it  is  doubtful  whether  it  could  have  done  any  prac- 
tical good  if  it  had  not  openly  protested.     After  its   de- 
nunciations  of   the   Roman  policy   of   the   government,    it 
would  have  looked  like  timidity  to  submit  to  the  will  of  the 
majority.     The  force  of  events,  the  duplicity  of  the  cabinet, 
the  wiles  of  Louis  Napoleon  made  the  defeat  of  the  Moun- 
tain inevitable.     Its  members  may  be  blamed  for  lack  of 
wisdom;  their  courage,  honesty,  and  loyalty  are  unquestion- 
able. •' 
And  what  did  the  Assembly  do  on  June  13  ?     It  met  amid 
general  excitement.     Of  the  extreme  left  only  a  few  mem- 
bers  were  present.     Barrot   announced  that   a   conspiracy 
was  on  foot  and  read  a  message  from  the  president  of  the 
republic  asking  for  a  state  of  siege.     Lagrange,  a  Montag- 
nard,  protested  against  bloody  methods  of  repression.     A 
permanent  session  was  decreed.     Dufaure  demanded  a  state 
of  siege.     The  committee  to  which  the  question  had  been 


396  LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [550 

referred  approved.  In  spite  of  an  eloquent  protest  by  Pierre 
I^roux  the  state  of  siege  was  decreed  394  to  82,  the  left  vot- 
ing in  the  negative.  A  proclamation  was  adopted  calling  on 
the  people  to  rally  to  the  support  of  the  Assembly.  The 
arrest  of  Suchet  was  announced.  Cremieux  and  the  Mon- 
tagnard,  Canet,  protested;  but  attorney-general  Baroche  de- 
fended the  arrest  and  the  Assembly  voted  the  previous  ques- 
tion 328  to  97.  After  the  arrest  of  the  six  deputies  in  the 
courtyard  of  the  Conservatory  had  been  announced,  the 
members  of  the  Assembly  separated.^ 

^  For  good  account  of  the  session,  see  Barrot  3 :  302-312. 


CHAPTER  XXV 

Aftermath 

During  the  latter  half  of  June  1849  Ledru-Rollin  was 
in  hiding  somewhere  in  France.  The  police  were  most 
anxious  to  arrest  him,  "  for  they  believed  his  capture  would 
be  a  sort  of  guarantee  to  Europe  for  the  peace  of  the  capital 
and  the  suppression  of  turbulence  elsewhere."  ^  Even  after 
the  fugitive  had  reached  London,  the  police  continued  their 
search;  French  gendarmes  ran  up  and  down  the  banks 
of  the  river  which  separated  Piedmont  from  France,  looking' 
for  Ledru-Rollin  or  at  least  Felix  Pyat.^  From  everywhere 
came  reports  of  the  presence  of  the  fugitive.  He  was  sup- 
posed to  have  escaped  to  Geneva,  to  Belgium,  to  England, 
to  be  in  hiding  in  Cambrai,  to  be  captured  in  Lyons. 
Actually  no  one  knew  anything  of  his  whereabouts.  The 
most  likely  story  is  that  he  passed  the  first  night  at  Luciennes 
near  St.  Germain  and  then  went  on  to  Poissy  or  La  Chartre.^ 
The  first  positive  information  comes  from  two  letters  written 
by  Martin  Bernard  to  his  brothers  on  July  6 : 

I  crossed  the  frontier  of  Belgium  this  morning  at  3:20,  and 

at  5  I  was  threading  the  streets  of  Brussels Our  escape 

was  crowned  by  insolent  good  fortune.  Three  of  us  left  to- 
gether, Ledru-Rollin,  Etienne  Arago,  and  L  .  .  .  We  entered 
our  railroad  carriage  a  few  minutes  before  eight  at  the  Gare 
du  Nord.     As  you  may  well  imagine,  to  reach  our  wagon  with- 

1  Times,  June  21,  1849. 

2  Herzen  2 :  66. 

"  For  references  and  details  see  Caiman,  Ledru-Rollin  aprcs  1848,  p.  19. 
551]  397 


3o8   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [552 

out  being  obliged  to  undergo  the  inspection  of  the  men  of 
tlie  Rue  de  Jerusalem  [policemen]  the  mysterious  intervention 
of  devoted  friends  was  needed.  As  for  me,  I  almost  doubted 
of  success.  .  .  .  Once  on  the  train,  I  considered  our  operation 
as  crowned  with  success.  We  were  asked  for  our  passports 
at  the  Quievrain  station.  I  shall  always  regard  the  inspector 
as  a  brave  and  loyal  official.  ...  In  brief,  at  five  o'clock  we 
got  out  at  the  station  in  Brussels.^ 

Ledru  remained  in  Belgium  only  a  short  time,  for  the 
Belgian  liberal  ministry  asked  most  of  the  French  proscripts 
residing  there  to  leave  the  country.  Accordingly  he  pro- 
ceeded to  England  and  settled  in  London.  As  soon  as  his 
wife  was  assured  of  his  escape,  she  followed  him." 

In  the  French  departments  rumors  were  current  that  the 
government  had  been  overthrown.  As  a  result  there  was  a 
serious  uprising  at  Lyons  on  June  15  which  was  finally  put 
down  ^  and  another  at  Colmar  and  Strasbourg  in  Alsace.* 
There  were  minor  uprisings  at  Amiens,  Bordeaux,  Dijon, 
Grenoble,  Montpellier,  Rheims  and  Riom.^  Order  was  soon 
restored  in  the  provinces.  There  the  authorities  spread 
calumnies  against  Ledru.  The  peasants  were  told : 
"  Ledru-Rollin  was  a  thief.  There  were  forty  thousand 
people  in  Paris  who  paid  him  forty  sous  a  day  apiece.  He 
intended  to  make  himself  king.  It  was  the  money  he  carried 
off  that  made  the  republic  poor."  ® 

The  radical  newspapers  continued  to  defend  the  Mon- 
tagnard  refugees,  but  most  of  these  journals  were  either 

^  Bernard,  73-5. 

'  For  details  see  Caiman,  Ledru-Rollin  aprcs  1848,  pp.  20-1. 

*  Moniteur  for  1849,  p.  2091. 

*  Muller  64-5,  1807. 

^  Dufaure  in  Assembly,  June  16,  Moniteur  for  1849,  p.  2084;  Ledru 
trial,  ibid.,  31 18. 
®  Senior  i :  181. 


523]  AFTERMATH  399 

suppressed  directly  by  the  government  or  failed  as  a  result 
of  the  fines  imposed/  The  liberal  papers  hesitated  to  de- 
fend the  Mountain;  the  National  complained  that  in  Paris 
only  the  radical  newspapers,  the  Liberie,  and  the  Temps 
aided  in  the  defense  of  Guinard.^ 

In  the  Legislative  Assembly  the  deputies  embarked  upon 
their  task  of  enacting  reactionary  legislation  and  began  with 
a  stringent  law  concerning  the  clubs.  On  June  14  permis- 
sion to  prosecute  Ledru-Rollin,  Considerant,  and  two  other 
deputies  for  conspiracy  and  insurrection  was  demanded  by 
Attorney-General  Baroche.  A  committee  composed  of 
fourteen  conservatives  and  one  member  of  the  left  centre 
brought  in  a  unanimous  report  in  favor  of  granting  the 
permission  to  prosecute.  Tamisier,  a  member  of  the  ex- 
treme left,  pleaded  for  Considerant,  and  the  Montagnard, 
Bac,  appealed  for  moderation  after  victory.  But  the  iVssembly 
granted  the  desired  permission.  Demands  were  also  made  for 
permission  to  prosecute  other  deputies,  and  permission  was 
granted  in  all  but  two  cases. ^  On  August  19  by  a  special 
decree  the  accused  were  to  be  tried  by  a  high  court  at  Ver- 
sailles. 

Meanwhile  domicilary  visits  were  being  made.  At  four 
in  the  afternoon  of  June  15  a  policeman  visited  Fontenay- 
aux-Rloses.  Ledru's  gardener  declared  that  his  master  had 
left  on  June  11  and  had  not  returned  since,  but  the  police- 
man believed  that  this  was  a  He  as  in  one  of  the  rooms  he 
found  grouped  about  a  sofa  six  or  seven  chairs  which  still 
bore  the  imprint  of  occupants,  and  in  the  park  he  saw  the 
footprints  of  several  men  and  one  woman.     He  seized  a  box 

'  For  details  on  the  Reforme,  see  (Caiman,  Ledru-Rollin  aprcs  1848, 
p.  24. 
'  National,  June  15,  1849. 
^  However,  three  of  these  deputies  were  never  brought  to  trial. 


^OO   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [554 

of  cartridges  and  some  powder  as  well  as  five  letters  relative 
to  political  matters/ 

The  first  policeman  that  visited  Ledru's  Parisian  home 
in  the  Rue  de  Tournon  was  told  that  Ledru  had  not  re- 
turned since  the  morning  of  June  13.  Berthe  Leroux,  the 
maid  of  j\Ime.  Ledru-Rollin,  admitted  him  to  the  deputy's 
study.  There  he  found  a  quantity  of  pamphlets,  books,  and 
manuscripts,  but  a  rapid  survey  showed  nothing  relative  to 
a  plot.  A  few  days  later  another  official  arrived  and  found 
M.  and  Mme.  David  d' Angers  with  Henriette  Ledru-Rollin 
in  her  bedroom ;  nothing  was  discovered  there.  In  the  study 
was  ^lathis,  the  private  secretary,  who  declared  that  he  had 
just  entered;  a  stack  of  papers  before  him  proved  the  truth 
of  this  assertion.  The  papers  were  in  great  disorder,  but 
the  policeman  collected  all  those  relative  to  political  affairs. 
Mathis  insisted  they  were  of  no  importance,  for  Ledru  was 
in  the  habit  of  destroying  all  his  political  correspondence. 
The  official  told  him  that  this  was  his  affair  and  went 
away  with  these  papers  as  well  as  some  letters  in  Italian 
and  German.  This  appeared  to  disturb  Mathis.^  As  these 
letters  were  not  produced  at  the  subsequent  trial  they  must 
indeed  have  been  innocuous. 

Still  later,  on  October  13,  a  third  visit  was  made  by  the 
police,  but  this  was  only  to  look  for  Ledru,  who  was  sus- 
pected of  having  returned.  The  cause  of  this  visit  is  amus- 
ing. A  neighbor  thought  that  she  heard  a  cat  jumping 
about  in  the  deserted  apartments.  She  told  her  friends,  and 
the  story  grew  until  it  was  asserted  that  the  Montagnard 
chieftain  was  there. ^     During  July  a  search  for  the  fugitive 

^  Affaire  du  13  Juin  i :  516. 

^Ihid.,  1:517-8. 

^  LR  Papers  i  :  563,  letter  of  Mathis.  For  details  see  Caiman,  Ledru- 
Rollin  apres,  pp.  18-9. 


255]  AFTERMATH  4OI 

had  also  been  made  at  the  home  of  Babaud,  Ledru's  notary, 
near  Pontoise/ 

On  June  21  the  Mountain  headquarters  in  the  Rue  du 
Hasard  were  visited  by  a  poHceman.  Sixteen  deputies  were 
present,  and  they  signed  a  protest  against  the  invasion  of 
their  rooms. ^  Most  of  the  members  of  the  Mountain  were 
called  before  the  judges  charged  to  investigate  the  affair 
of  June  13  but  they  refused  to  give  information;  they  de- 
clared that  they  could  not  testify  as  they  were  half  witnesses, 
half  accused;  besides,  as  deputies  they  were  exempt  from  the 
obligation  of  testifying.  Many,  however,  denied  that  they 
had  signed  the  proclamation  dated  from  the  Conservatory.^ 
Of  all  the  deputies  only  one,  Versigny,  consented  to  be  a 
witness  at  the  trial. 

Ledru  returned  to  Paris  from  London  whither  he  had 
fled  after  June  13;  he  wished  to  surrender  himself  so  as  to 
lend  his  testimony  to  his  friends  at  the  impending  trial,  but 
influential  members  of  the  Mountain  prevented  him  and 
induced  him  to  leave  France.*  Ledru-Rollin,  Etienne 
Arago,  Martin  Bernard,  and  four  other  fugitives  excused 
their  absence  from  the  prisoners'  bench  in  a  letter.  In  the 
first  place,  they  said,  they  could  not  accept  as  accusers  the 
very  men  whom  they  had  declared  violators  of  the  constitu- 
tion. Moreover,  they  did  not  recognize  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  special  court.  Thirdly  they  would  fall  into  a  judicial 
trap,   for  discussion   of   the  violation  of   the  constitution 

^  Affaire  du  13  Juin  i :  5i9- 

•Ibid.,  1:4. 

'  Tbid.,  1 :  344-382.  All  but  six  of  those  whose  signatures  were  ap- 
pended either  to  the  proclamation  of  the  Mountain  drawn  up  on  the 
evening  of  June  12  or  the  one  dated  from  the  Conservatory  were  sum- 
moned. Two  deputies  of  the  left  who  were  summoned,  also  refused 
information. 

*  Nation  of  Brussels,  August  25,  1849. 


^02   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [556 

Avould  be  refused.  Lastly,  they  could  do  more  useful  work 
at  liberty  abroad  than  in  prison/ 

On  October  13  the  trial  opened  at  Versailles.  There 
were  sixty-seven  persons  accused  of  whom  twenty-nine  were 
present.  They  were  divided  into  four  catagories.  i'' 
Socialist-Democratic  Committee  of  twenty-five.  14  accused; 
5  present.  2°  Committee  of  the  press.  7  accused  including 
Delescluze;  3  present.  3°  Deputies.  31  accused,  including* 
Ledru,  Martin  Bernard,  and  Considerant;  11  present.  4" 
Miscellaneous.  15  accused  including  Etienne  Arago,  Fore- 
stier,  Guinard,  and  Schmitz;  10  present."  Prominent  mem- 
bers of  the  radical  and  moderate  parties  acted  as  lawyers 
for  the  defense.  Thirteen  of  them  were  deputies  or  ex- 
deputies,  such  as  Buvignier,  Cremieux,  Jules  Favre,  and 
jMichel  de  Bourges.  Of  the  ten  others,  two  were  leaders 
of  the  bar:  Madier  de  ]\Iontjau,  Sr.  and  Thourel. 

As  soon  as  the  trial  began,  all  the  accused  present  except 
two  declared  that  the  constitution  had  been  violated  and  that 
therefore  the  court  had  no  jurisdiction.  Madier  and  Michel 
tried  to  argue  the  question,  but  the  court  refused  to  hear 
them.  The  general  accusation  was  then  read.  The  first 
point  brought  up  was  the  formation  of  the  Solidarite  repuh- 
licaine  as  a  means  of  rousing  revolt,  but  so  weak  was  this 
point  that  it  disappeared  after  the  accusation  had  been  read. 
Then  letters  of  Martin  Bernard  and  Delescluze  were  pro- 
duced. Those  of  the  former  were  decidedly  peaceful,  those  of 
the  latter  could  be  interpreted  as  pacific  or  warlike.  It  is 
noteworthy  that  not  a  letter  of  Ledru  was  brought  for- 
ward as  evidence  although  his  entire  correspondence  had 
been  seized.     The  first  proposal  on  the  part  of  the  Mountain 

^  Ibid.,  October  4;  Tribune  du  Peuple,  October  3,  1849. 

'  Moniteur  for  1849,  3193-9.  For  excellent,  full  account  of  the  trial, 
showing  unfairness  of  the  judges,  see  Felice  in  Revolution  de  1848,  6: 
314-325- 


557]  AFTERMATH  403 

for  the  impeachment  of  the  ministers  was  mentioned ;  it  was 
claimed  without  proof  that  this  had  been  a  pretext.  It  was 
asserted  that  January  29  was  a  radical  uprising,  but  in  sup- 
port of  this  absurdity  only  a  vague  letter  by  one  of  the 
accused  was  produced.  The  fusion  of  the  radicals  and 
socialists  was  claimed  to  be  for  the  purpose  of  insurrection- 
ary agitation,  but  all  that  was  shown  was  that  a  certain  abbe 
was  in  April  1849  contemplating  insurrection.  It  was  as- 
serted that  in  the  original  draft  of  the  constitution  of  the 
Mountain  the  pledge  to  defend  the  constitution  if  violated 
contained  also  the  words  with  arms.  The  proof  of  this 
allegation  was  not  clear,  and  certainly  all  Frenchmen  ad- 
mitted that  citizens  were  bound  to  defend  the  constitution 
by  any  means  when  violated.  Next  was  produced  an  article 
which  had  appeared  in  several  newspapers,  declaring  that  if 
sacred  rights  were  denied  to  the  people,  they  had  the  right 
to  defend  themselves;  this  was  considered  as  a  clear  incite- 
•ment  to  war,  but  this  very  article  included  the  phrase:  "  We 
do  not  wish  to  be  accused  of  preferring  the  victory  of  blood 
to  the  victory  of  the  ballot  box."  Such  vague  doctrines 
were  hardly  fit  for  a  serious  accusation.  Next  was  dis- 
cussed the  transformation  of  the  democratic-socialist  elec- 
tion committee  into  the  committee  of  twenty-five,  but  all 
that  could  be  proved  against  it  was  that  one  of  the  members 
had  desired  to  adopt  the  policy  of  Blanqui,  that  the  com- 
mittee had  worked  with  the  journalists,  and  that  there  were 
constant  complaints  in  the  press  against  the  legislative 
majority.  The  solidarity  of  the  Mountain  was  the  next 
point  in  the  indictment.  It  was  claimed  but  not  proved  that 
the  Roman  question  was  a  mere  pretext  to  cause  an  insur- 
rection and  that  I^dru  was  not  sick  when  he  asked  for  a 
postponement  of  the  interpellations  on  June  7.  It  was  as- 
serted that  the  Montagnards  were  always  declaring  the  con- 
stitution violated.     This  was  true  but  had  nothing  to  do 


_^0^   UIDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [558 

with  the  subject.  Nor  had  the  assertion  that  at  a  banquet 
of  Alsatian  cooks  attended  by  none  of  the  accused  a  toast 
was  drunk  to  the  cholera  that  killed  Marshal  Bugeaud. 
Neither  was  it  a  crime  on  Ledru-Rollin's  part  to  receive 
from  Italy  letters  abusing  Oudinot  and  the  policy  of  the 
cabinet.  The  meetings  of  June  11  were  mentioned  and 
they  were  stated  dogmatically  to  be  warlike,  but  every  shred 
of  evidence  produced  showed  that  they  were  pacific.  It  was 
asserted  that  the  Society  for  the  Rights  of  Man  had  de- 
clared for  an  appeal  to  arms  if  peaceful  measures  should 
fail.  This  was  probably  true,  but  note  that  peaceful  meas- 
ures were  preferred.  The  speeches  and  manifestoes  of  June 
II  and  12  were  called  a  summons  to  arms,  but  it  has  been 
shown  that  they  were  really  a  peaceful  protest.  Then  came 
the  "  military  outbreak  "  of  the  thirteenth  and  the  uprisings 
in  the  provinces ;  of  course  a  biased  version  was  given.^ 

Altogether  the  prosecution  had  proved  nothing.  It  had 
asserted  that  there  was  a  conspiracy  but  had  brought  for- 
ward no  proof.  It  had  shown  that  the  deputies  of  the 
Mountain  had  been  at  the  Conservatory  and  it  had  charged 
them  with  insurrection,  but  again  it  had  given  no  clear  proof. 
It  had  hunted  into  the  most  obscure  corners  and  all  it  had 
shown  was  that  the  accused  believed  that  the  constitution 
had  been  violated  and  that  a  few  other  men  not  among  the 
accused  had  clearly  advocated  a  revolt.  It  had  twisted 
innocent  facts  into  incriminating  evidence,  and,  when  even 
that  had  been  impossible,  it  had  made  a  bare  assertion  that 
there  had  been  a  conspiracy. 

After  the  general  accusation  had  been  completed  the  in- 
dividual accusations  were  taken  up.  That  of  Ledru-Rollin 
told  of  his  presence  at  the  various  meetings,  but  it  falsely 
stated  that  he  had  made  a  speech  at  the  Palais  National.  It 
added  that  fifty  cartridges,  two  cases  of  gunpowder,  and 

^Moniteur  for  1849,  pp.  3099-3103,  31 15-8. 


559]  AFTERMATH  405 

balls  of  a  small  calibre  had  been  found  at  Fontenay.  In 
the  first  place,  all  the  ammunition  might  have  been  intended 
for  hunting.  Secondly,  it  was  a  small  amount  for  a  revolt. 
Lastly,  the  fact  that  the  ammunition  had  been  found  in  the 
country  instead  of  in  Paris  was  presumptive  evidence  that 
no  revolt  was  intended  on  June  13/ 

After  the  accusation  was  finished  the  prisoners  were  ex- 
amined, but  most  refused  to  answer.  Then  the  witnesses 
were  put  on  the  stand.  One  of  the  first  persons  to  testify 
was  Girardin,  and  he  was  a  doughty  adversary  for  the  pro- 
secution. He  showed  how  a  lawyer  for  the  prosecution 
had  interfered  unwarrantably  in  his  preliminary  examina- 
tion. President  Berenger,  the  presiding  judge,  refused  to 
listen  to  his  complaint.  Girardin  then  wanted  to  explain 
the  justice  of  the  remarks  on  the  constitution  made  in  his 
and  other  newspapers,  but  the  court  refused  to  hear  him. 
Thereupon  Girardin  declared  the  liberty  of  witnesses  vio- 
lated and  declined  to  give  further  testimony.^  This  is  but 
one  of  the  cases  where  the  court  stretched  its  powers  to  the 
utmost  to  aid  the  prosecution.  The  worst  incident  oc- 
curred later.  The  court  was  hearing  evidence  on  the  pro- 
cession and  policeman  Petit  was  on  the  stand.  He  ed- 
mitted  that  he  had  slashed  a  kneeling  youth  ^  and  he  seemed 
to  take  pride  in  having  done  so.  A  lawyer,  Thourel,  calmly 
rebuked  him  for  this  action,  unworthy  of  a  Frenchman. 
There :pon  Petit  shouted:  *'  Your're  all  sons  of  .  .  .  all  of 
you."  The  prisoners  rose  in  protest.  Two  lawyers  for  the 
defense  retired  from  the  case.  Then  President  Berenger 
declared  both  sides  equally  at  fault,  asserted  that  the  rebuke 
of  Thourel  was  as  unjustifiable  as  the  exclamation  of  Petit.* 

^  Moniteur  for  1849,  pp  3119-24. 

*  Ihid.,  zi^^y. 
2  See  page  378. 

*  Moniteur  3186. 


4o6   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [560 

It  is  fraiueiitly  stated  ^  that  the  prisoners  were  insulting 
to  the  soldiers  who  testified.  This  is  not  true.  To  such 
an  officer  as  Colonel  Alphonse  the  accused  were  anxious  to 
extend  thanks  for  his  courtesy.  It  was  only  when  officers 
insulted  them  that  they  became  angry.  Once  Daniel  Lama- 
ziere.  one  of  the  accused  deputies,  even  gave  the  lie  to  a 
captain,  whereupon  he  was  fined  by  the  court."  On  October 
25,  1849  the  review  of  the  general  facts  was  completed;  from 
then  on  until  November  7  witnesses  were  heard  relative  to 
the  individual  cases  of  those  present. 

On  November  7  District  Attorney  Rpyer  summed  up  for 
the  prosecution.  He  repeated  the  arguments  used  in  the 
opening  accusation.  He  gave  the  usual  biased  lawyer's  plea. 
When  analyzed,  his  speech  offered  no  evidence  of  a  precon- 
certed plot  and  was  not  convincing  on  the  charge  of  insur- 
rection.' 

November  1 1  was  appointed  for  the  final  argument  of  the 
defense.  iMichel  de  Bourges  began  by  saying  that  if  the 
constitution  had  been  violated,  insurrection  would  have  been 
permissible.  Royer  interrupted  to  maintain  that  only  the 
Assembly  had  the  right  to  judge  violations  of  the  con- 
stitution. But  this  was  precisely  the  point  which  the  Moun- 
tain denied.  President  Berenger  refused  to  let  ^Michel  pro- 
ceed. ]\Iadier  de  ^lontjau,  thereupon,  in  behalf  of  all  the 
law\-ers  for  the  defense,  declared  that  as  the  bench  was  ex- 
ceeding its  authority,  none  of  them  would  plead.*  On  the 
twelfth  the  presiding  judge  summed  up,  clearly  in  favor  of 
the  prosecution,'^   and  the  next  day  was  read  the  verdict 

'  E.  g.  Beaumont- Vassy  4 :  549-550. 
'  Monifeur  3305. 
'  Ibid.,  3546-3557. 
*  Ibid.,  3612-5. 
^Ibid.,  3642. 


56 1]  AFTERMATH  407 

against  those  present.  Fifteen  of  the  accused,  including 
Guinard  and  nine  deputies,  were  sentenced  to  transporta- 
tion; three,  including  one  deputy,  Suchet,  were  to  be  im- 
prisoned for  five  years;  eleven,  including  Forestier  and  one 
deputy,  were  acquitted.  Five  deputies  were  found  guilty 
of  conspiracy  and  insurrection;  five  deputies,  as  well  as 
Guinard,  were  found  guilty  only  of  insurrection.  In  ad- 
dition, the  lawyers  for  the  defense  were  told  that  their  pro- 
test on  the  Petit  incident  would  not  be  heard,  and  Madier  de 
Montjau  was  admonished  for  asserting  that  the  bench  had 
exceeded  its  authority.^  On  November  15  all  the  accused 
who  had  succeeded  in  escaping  were  found  guilty  of  both 
insurrection  and  conspiracy,  and  were  sentenced  to  trans- 
portation. ' 

Was  the  conviction  justified?  The  condemnation  on  a 
charge  of  conspiracy  was  absurd,  for  who  conspired?  It 
could  not  have  been  the  Committee  of  Twenty-five,  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Press,  the  Mountain,  or  the  fifth  legion  of  the 
National  Guard,  for  half  of  the  members  of  each  of  these 
organizations  were  acquitted.  Where  then  was  the  con- 
spiracy? The  government  offered  no  solution  to  this  ques- 
tion. As  to  the  condemnation  for  insurrection,  there  was 
considerable  evidence  to  support  this  charge,  but  if  the 
benefit  of  the  doubt  had  been  given  to  the  accused — such  is 
not  the  custom  in  France — they  should  have  been  acquitted. 
But  one  thing  stands  out  in  this  trial  above  everything  else: 
the  gross  unfairness  of  the  bench. 

On  January  30,  1850  Rouher,  who  had  become  attorney- 
general,  reported  the  verdict  to  the  Assembly,  and  on  the 
next  day  the  seats  of  the  convicted  Montagnards  were  de- 
clared vacant.     On  February  8  Michel  de  Bourges  protested 

^  Moniteur  3659-62. 
^  Ibid.,  3686-7. 


^o8   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [ 562 

against  the  judgment  of  the  Versailles  tribunal.  President 
Dupin  called  him  to  order,  but  Michel  continued.  The 
president  maintained  his  censure  and  the  Assembly  approved. 
Pascal  Duprat,  a  member  of  the  left,  had  a  hot  debate  with 
Dupin  on  this  point,  but  the  right  and  centre  paid  no  at- 
tention to  Duprat  and  proceeded  to  other  business. 

The  government  had  not  yet  attacked  all  the  prominent 
democrats.  It  decided  to  prosecute  the  leaders  of  the 
Solidarite  repuhUcaine.  Many  of  these  were  already  in 
exile  or  in  the  penal  colonies,  but  on  October  26,  1849  de- 
puty Sarrut,^  ex-deputy  Buvignier,  Delescluze,  and  six  other 
civilians  were  charged  with  conspiracy.  Although  all  except 
Buvignier  and  one  civilian  succeeded  in  escaping,  a  trial  was 
held  and  on  April  12,  1850  a  verdict  of  guilty  was  found 
against  them  and  penalties  of  one  or  two  years'  imprison- 
ment were  inflicted." 

The  Mountain,  thus  reduced  in  size,  was  now  under  the 
leadership  of  Michel  de  Bourges.  It  is  one  of  the  ironies 
of  history  that  the  only  leader  who  had  openly  advocated  an 
uprising  should  be  the  one  who  was  not  arrested  and  should 
have  succeeded  as  head  of  the  party  the  far  more  pacific 
Ledru-Rollin.  To  replace  the  Montagnards  who  had  been 
convicted,  new  elections  were  held  in  1850,  and  in  the  main 
those  who  were  chosen  were  radicals.  Thereupon  the 
frightened  Assembly  passed  the  law  of  May  31  mutilating 
universal  suffrage.  The  following  year  it  passed  the  well- 
known  Falloux  law  giving  education  into  the  hand  of  the 
clergy.  The  ]\Iontagnard  deputies  protested  but  did  noth- 
ing. Ledru  in  England  wanted  a  more  active  policy.  He 
helped  organize  various  associations,  such  as  the  Nouvelle 
Montagne  and  the  Marianne,  which  tried  to  stir  up  active 

'  The  Assembly  refused  permission  to  prosecute  three  other  deputies. 
^Gazette  des  Tribunaux,  December  14,  1849;  April  13,  1850. 


\ 
1 


263]  AFTERMATH  409 

resistance.  With  Delescluze  he  founded  the  Voir  du  Pro- 
scrit  in  which  they  preached  their  poUcies.  Ledru's  most 
important  articles  were  a  defense  of  the  referendum  and  an 
advocacy  of  abstention  from  elections  as  a  protest  against  the 
policies  of  the  French  government.  With  Mazzini,  Darasz, 
and  Ruge  he  founded  a  Central  European  Democratic  Com- 
mittee, which  attempted  to  unite  all  the  democratic  move- 
ments in  Europe  in  one  organization.  The  Central  Com- 
mittee founded  sub-committees,  sent  out  a  few  emissaries, 
issued  many  proclamations — and  accomplished  nothing  ex- 
cept to  frighten  conservative  governments.  In  France  the 
Mountain  and  the  bourgeoisie  could  not  unite,  and  Louis 
Napoleon  played  them  against  each  other  until  he  was  ready 
to  be  rid  of  both;  on  December  2,  185 1  by  a  coup  d'etat  he 
made  himself  ruler  of  France.  A  year  later  he  was  pro- 
claimed emperor. 

Ledru  in  England  had  to  work  for  a  living.  The 
government,  probably  illegally,  had  confiscated  even  his 
wife's  fortune.  He  supported  himself  by  writing.  His 
most  important  work  was  the  Decadence  d'Angleterre,  a 
biassed  and  worthless  study  of  English  economic  conditions. 

During  the  first  decade  of  the  second  empire,  Ledru  was 
comparatively  inactive  in  political  affairs.  He  wrote  a  few 
articles.  He  continued  to  aid  in  republican  propaganda 
by  correspondence  with  the  departments  of  France  and 
through  the  Central  Committee,  reorganized  in  the  form  of 
a  triumvirate  consisting  of  himself,  Kossuth,  and  Mazzini. 
The  French  government  tried  to  implicate  him  in  several 
conspiracies  and  even  condemned  him  for  participation  in 
the  Tibaldi  plot  of  1857,  but  his  innocence  is  unquestionable. 

During  the  sixties  Ledru-Rollin  was  even  less  active. 
He  devoted  himself  to  astronomy,  philosophy,  and  social 
studies.  Fie  came  closer  than  before  to  a  socialistic  position 
in  a  letter  to  the  Association,  the  organ  of  the  society  spon- 


^  I  o   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [564 

sored  by  Mvirx  and  ^lazzini  in  1864;  he  openly  declared  his 
adhesion  to  the  movement  for  the  association  of  labor  and 
capital,  for  workingmen's  combinations.  The  French  gov- 
ernment, due  to  his  alleged  part  in  the  Tibaldi  conspiracy, 
excluded  him,  and  him  alone  of  all  the  exiles,  from  the  two 
general  amnesties  of  1859  and  1869.  This  together  with 
the  fact  that  he  was  one  of  the  chief  protagonists  of  the 
republican  cause  rendered  him  most  popular  in  France.  In 
the  supplementary  elections  of  November  1869  all  Paris  ac- 
claimed his  candidacy  to  the  legislature.  But  Ledru  re- 
fused to  take  the  preliminary  oath  to  the  empire  or  to  come 
to  Paris  for  fear  of  arrest,  and  at  the  last  moment  he  with- 
drew his  candidacy.  One  of  the  first  acts  of  the  Ollivier 
ministry  was  to  declare  the  amnesties  applicable  to  him,  and 
early  in  1870  he  returned  to  France. 

Ledru  took  practically  no  part  in  the  founding  of  the  third 
republic  although  it  was  he  who  suggested  to  Gambetta  the 
idea  of  forming  the  Government  of  National  Defense  from 
the  Paris  deputies.  During  the  last  months  of  1870  he 
played  a  decidedly  secondary  part  in  the  radical  party,  and 
early  in  1871  he  abandoned  it  because  it  seemed  to  be  be- 
coming too  revolutionary,  to  be  falling  under  the  influence 
of  his  old  opponent,  Blanqui.  Elected  to  the  National  As- 
sembly in  1 87 1  by  three  departments,  he  resigned  his  seat, 
stating  that  the  election  had  been  based  on  universal  suf- 
frage. The  commune  so  disgusted  him  that  he  retired  to 
England  for  two  years.  In  1874  he  reentered  public  life. 
He  defended  universal  suffrage  on  June  3  in  a  speech  be- 
fore the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  but  that  was  his  swan  song, 
for  on  December  31,  1874  Ledru-Rollin  expired  at  Fontenay- 
aux-Roses.^ 

^  For  details  3S  to  his  later  life,  see  Caiman,  Lcdru-Rollin  apres  1848. 


CHAPTER  XXVI  i 

Conclusion 

With  the  possible  exception  of  Thiers  and  Lamartine, 
Ledru-RolHn  is  admitted  to  be  the  greatest  orator  of  the 
second  repubHc.  One  day  Thiers  was  asked  by  a  sovereign : 
"  Who,  after  yourself,  is  the  greatest  orator  of  the  As- 
sembly?" He  replied:  "After  me,  Sire,  comes  Ledru- 
Rollin."  ^ 

Ledru's  ability  lay  rather  in  the  field  of  eloquence  than  of 
logic.  His  chief  quality  was  chaleur,  which  might  be 
translated  warmth  and  earnestness.  No  matter  on  what 
subject  Ledru  spoke,  the  depth  and  sincerity  of  his  con- 
victions were  convincing.  Closely  allied  to  these  was  his 
sympathy,  sympathy  for  the  workingmen  suffering  from 
misery,  sympathy  for  the  Romans  oppressed  by  the  Pope, 
sympathy  for  the  victims  of  an  uprising  he  himself  had 
helped  to  suppress.  He  lacked  logic  but  he  replaced  it  by  a 
remarkable  technical  clarity;  there  were  few  orators  who 
could  equal  this  lawyer  in  his  presentation  of  erudite  legal 
or  complicated  financial  problems  in  a  form  clear  to  lay 
minds.  Honesty  was  another  outstanding  characteristic. 
Ledru  never  went  off  into  tortuous  quibbles  as  did  Thiers; 
he  never  deceived  himself  into  defending  something  con- 
trary to  his  basic  principles  as  did  Barrot.  Under  the 
second  republic  when  so  many  prominent  statesmen  changed 
their  ideas  frequently,  Ledru  stands  out  for  his  consistency. 

1  Bulletin  Municipal  de  Paris  pour  1908,  p.  786.  See  also  opinions  of 
Delord  i :  81-3  and  Babaud-Laribiere  2:  15. 

56s]  411 


4 1 2   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [566 

Differences  in  tactics  we  ma}-  find,  but  his  fundamental 
beliefs  remained  the  same  throughout  his  life. 

Still  Ledru-RoUin  had  many  faults.  He  could  present 
ideas  clearly,  but  he  rarely  presented  facts  plainly.  That  he 
could  give  an  explicit  narrative  was  shown  by  his  account 
of  the  Moulins  outrage.  But  usually  he  preferred  to  in- 
dulge in  vague  diatribes  and  hazy  indications  instead  of  in  a 
simple  exposition  of  the  facts.  In  his  pamphlet  on  June 
13  he  weakened  his  effect  considerably  by  adopting  this 
method.  In  the  matter  of  arrangement  he  was  not  adept. 
Too  often  his  lively  temperament  caused  him  to  pass  be- 
yond his  subject,  and  then  he  w^as  forced  to  return  to  it  in 
order  to  mention  a  forgotten  argument.  From  this,  re- 
sult many  useless  repetitions.  He  also  lacked  the  power 
of  conciseness;  most  of  his  speeches  would  be  improved 
by  being  reduced  to  half  their  length.  His  command  of 
humor  was  slight.  His  nearest  approach  consisted  of 
irony  and  of  bitter,  short  replies  to  interruptors.  But  it 
must  be  remembered  that  most  of  his  contemporaries  had 
the  same  failing.  He  was  egocentric;  this  was  revealed 
clearly  in  his  speeches.  Usually  the  result  w^as  effective, 
but  at  times,  as  in  his  attack  on  Cavaignac  on  November 
25,  1848,  he  weakened  his  oration  by  this  tendency. 

Certain  minor  characteristics  of  style  should  be  noted. 
He  had  an  effective  habit,  most  irritating  to  his  opponents, 
especially  to  chameleon  Barrot,  of  quoting  their  own  earlier 
words  against  themselves.  Unfortunately  for  them  they 
could  not  return  the  complement.  Ledru's  speeches  were 
filled  with  certain  phrases :  en  effet,  par  hasard,  encore  un 
coup,  fen  siiis  convaincu,  je  ne  saurais  trop  repeter,  per- 
mettez-moi  de  vous  le  dire.  He  was  overfond  of  appealing 
to  the  consciences  of  the  deputies.  The  form  of  rhetorical 
question  was  a  favorite  with  him. 

We  can  notice  various  styles  employed  by  Ledru  in  ad- 


267]  CONCLUSION  413 

dressing  the  Assembly.  First  there  was  the  purely  emo- 
tional appeal.  Secondly  there  was  the  technical  argument. 
Then  there  was  the  passionate  but  vague  denunciation. 
Also  there  was  the  jerky  series  of  replies  to  interrupters. 
Lastly  (the  sole  example  is  the  speech  on  the  Moulins  in- 
cident) there  was  the  straightforward  narrative. 

Above  all  else  in  Ledru's  speeches  was  apparent  his  love 
for  the  first  revolution.  "  The  key  to  all  his  strength  and 
all  his  weakness  is  his  devotion  to  the  first  republic,"  said  a 
republican  publicist  under  the  second  empire.^  He  con- 
stantly wished  to  revive  its  institutions.  He  quoted  Robes- 
pierre and  Rousseau  on  every  available  occasion.  The 
minor  figures  found  their  places,  thus  Herault  de  Sechelles 
on  constitutional,  Cambon  on  financial  matters.  On  all 
suitable  occasions  and  on  many  others  he  dragged  in  re- 
ferences to  the  Constituent  Assembly  of  1789,  to  the  Com- 
mune, above  all  to  the  Convention.  With  the  exception  of 
Machiavelli,  he  rarely  quoted  any  one  except  the  men  of 
1789  or  1792.  In  the  minds  of  many  of  his  contemporaries 
Ledru  was  merely  an  unthinking  admirer  of  the  first  revolu- 
tion, a  man  who  desired  the  return  of  the  terror  imthont  the 
guillotine.  But  they  themselves  admitted  by  the  phrase 
without  the  guillotine  that  it  was  not  the  terror  but  the 
Montagnard  institutions  that  he  supported.  By  education 
Ledru  was  a  devotee  of  the  Mountain  of  1792,  and  by  con- 
viction he  had  accepted  its  ideas.  But  he  was  sagacious 
enough  not  to  adhere  blindly  to  its  entire  creed.  A  few  of 
its  principles  he  rejected ;  some  he  adapted  to  the  times ;  the 
majority  he  accepted  as  the  best  existing  formulae. 

His  ideas  of  government  were  based  on  the  constitution 
of  1793.     During  the  first  part  of  his  life  he  emphasized 

1  Vermorel  151.  He  adds :  "  His  constant  dignity  in  words  and 
actions  made  of  M.  Ledru-Rollin  a  great  and  honourable  revolutionary- 
figure." 


^  1 4   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [568 

universal  suffrage;  after  1849  during  the  period  of  exile  he 
gave  more  prominence  to  the  referendum.  Here  v^as  the 
chief  change  in  his  ideas.  Up  to  1848  he  considered  the 
Avill  of  the  people  as  the  supreme  arbiter :  later  he  declared 
that  there  were  certain  rights  superior  even  to  the  popular 
will.  This  was  a  revival  of  the  the  old,  old  theory  of 
natural  rights,  a  favorite  theory  with  Rousseau.  In  financial 
matters  Cambon  was  largely  Ledru's  master;  from  him  he 
received  the  ideas  of  assignats  and  of  the  refusal  of  a  salary 
to  the  clergy.  But  his  fundamental  beliefs  were  those  that 
are  steadily  gaining  ground  today;  taxation  of  luxuries,  not 
necessities;  a  progressive  and  proportional  income  tax.  It 
was  with  Cambon  rather  than  with  Robespierre  that  he  sided 
on  religious  matters,  for  he  advocated  a  complete  separation 
of  church  and  state.  On  education  he  accepted  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Convention,  of  Lakanal  and  Robespierre :  free, 
universal,  secular,  state  education. 

In  foreign  affairs  Ledru  combined  the  intense  patriotism 
and  the  idealistic  internationalism  of  the  first  republic.  He 
was  as  touchy  on  French  honor  as  any  general,  as  proud  of 
France  as  any  chauvinist.  For  him  France  was  the  foun- 
tain-head of  republicanism,  bound  to  conquer  the  world  by 
her  ideas.  Unlike  the  Girondins,  he  did  not  advocate  an 
offensive  war  with  arms  to  spread  these  principles;  that 
was  unnecessary.  He  advocated  a  defensive  warfare  of  all 
the  European  democracies,  headed  by  France,  against  the 
Holy  Alliance  of  reactionary  monarchs.  From  this  war 
he  hoped  to  see  emerge  a  United  States  of  Europe,  a  sort  of 
League  of  Nations.  Of  foreign  countries  there  was  one 
that  he  abused  until  he  learned  by  a  long  residence  to  know 
it,  namely  England;  there  was  another  for  which  he  al- 
ways expressed  the  greatest  admiration  although  he  did  not 
reveal  profound  knowledge  of  it,  namely  the  United  States. 

In  judicial  matters  his  two  chief  desires  \vere  the  abolition 


569]  CONCLUSION  415 

of  the  death  penalty  and  the  establishment  of  an  elective 
magistracy.  In  military  affairs  he  advocated  the  militia 
system  in  place  of  a  standing  army  and  the  election  of  all 
but  the  highest  ofihcers.  The  inspiration  for  his  ideas  Ledru 
obtained  from  the  conventionnels,  but  he  was  not  a  blind 
follower  of  the  early  Montagnards. 

In  one  important  matter  his  views  were  somewhat  fluid. 
In  1792  social  problems  had  not  played  an  important  part; 
by  1848  they  had  come  into  prominence.  Ledru  was  always 
a  social  reformer,  never  a  thorough  socialist.  Repeatedly 
he  declared  that  the  political  revolution  was  merely  a  step  to- 
wards the  great  goal  of  social  reorganization.  But  he  was 
an  opportunist  not  a  theorist,  and  he  desired  gradual  evolu- 
tion by  mild  experiments.  With  the  Utopian  theories  of 
the  French  socialists  he  had  no  sympathy.  The  anarchism 
of  Proudhon  and  the  class-revolution  idea  of  Karl  Marx  he 
abhorred.  He  accepted  successively  two  ideas :  farmers' 
loan  banks  and  cooperative  associations.  He  was  also  in 
favor  of  the  extension  of  state  ownership  to  railroads,  canals, 
mines,  insurance  companies,  and  such  organizations.  1  f  the 
acceptance  of  these  ideas  makes  a  socialist,  he  was  one;  prob- 
ably it  is  preferable  to  call  him  merely  a  social  reformer. 
To  the  end  he  remained  faithful  to  his  dictum  of  1841  : 
"  I  hate  communism,"  even  when  he  called  himself  officially 
a  socialist.  Property  and  the  family  were  for  him  two 
basic  principles  that  must  not  be  touched;  it  was  the  unjust 
distribution  of  wealth  and  the  difficulty  of  family  life  for 
the  poor  to  which  he  objected. 

To  overthrow  monarchies  Ledru  consistently  advocated 
open  means.  He  was  never  a  conspirator.  Under  Louis 
Philippe  no  one  accused  him  of  plotting.  All  accusations 
that  he  took  part  in  plots  while  he  was  in  power  are  base- 
less. The  pacific  manifestation  of  March  17  he  openly  ap- 
proved.    When  he  believed  that  the  demonstration  of  April 


^l6   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [570 

\(^  miglit  l)ecome  a  riot,  he  took  measures  to  prevent  it. 
Tlie  movement  of  May  15  and  of  June  he  helped  suppress. 
Later,  when  he  saw  the  Bonapartists  and  the  reactionaries 
trying  to  undermine  the  repubhc,  he  insisted  on  the  right  of 
revolution  as  a  final  weapon  in  the  hands  of  the  people,  but 
he  desired  to  use  every  peaceable  means  first.  Even  on  June 
13  he  would  have  preferred  not  to  come  to  blows.  Under 
the  empire  he  took  no  part  in  conspiracies;  he  felt  confident 
that  the  mere  force  of  pacific  opposition,  the  emeiite  of  uni- 
versal suffrage,  would  be  sufficient  to  undermine  the  rotten 
structure  of  a  reactionary  government. 

Ledru-Rollin  was  not  a  great  party  leader.  He  was  too 
easily  swayed  by  his  companions.  He  was  too  confident  of 
an  ultimate  victory  for  his  cause,  and  he  did  not  clearly 
enough  see  the  forces  of  his  adversaries.  He  appealed  to 
such  measures  as  impeacliment  for  too  slight  a  cause.  When 
he  held  the  Assembly  enthralled  and  might  have  obtained  a 
vote  adverse  to  the  government,  he  frequently  demanded  too 
much  and  antagonized  the  moderates.  The  most  notable 
example  was  on  May  11,  1849  when  he  could  have  had 
Barrot  severely  censured  and  he  asked  for  recognition  of  the 
Roman  republic.  But  under  the  second  republic  he  showed 
more  wisdom  than  any  other  of  the  republican  leaders.  He 
was  an  opportunist  and  a  man  of  comparative  moderation. 
He  saw  clearly  that  the  prime  necessity  for  the  true  re- 
publicans was  the  union  of  all  factions  against  the  extreme 
revolutionists  and  the  conservatives.  Only  one  other  pro- 
minent statesman  saw  this  also;  this  was  Lamartine. 
(Flocon  and  Cremieux  can  be  considered  merely  as  fol- 
lowers of  Ledru  and  Lamartine.)  Unfortunately  neither  the 
socialist  theorists  like  Louis  Blanc  nor  the  timid  moderates 
like  Alarrast  would  agree  to  this  program.  When  this  union 
became  impossible,  Ledru  tried  another,  a  union  of  all 
radicals  and  socialists  on  a  platform  of  practicable  reforms. 


^71  ]  CONCLUSION  417 

This  was  the  Mountain,  whose  manifestoes  were  revolu- 
tionary but  in  no  way  uhra-revolutionary.  But  the  moder- 
ates did  not  reahze  until  too  late  how  closely  their  ideas 
resembled  those  of  Ledru.  When  Cremieux  joined  forces 
with  the  Mountain  in  the  Legislative  Assembly,  the  con- 
servatives had  already  gained  the  victory.  Opportunist 
Ledru  ever  was,  ready  to  work  with  any  one  to  obtain  di- 
sirable  reforms.  Minor  matters  he  would  put  aside  for  the 
moment,  but  basic  beliefs  he  never  abandoned.  To  obtain 
his  desires  he  attempted  Danton's  policy  of  audacity,  but 
here  again  he  failed.  He  was  always  extreme  in  words, 
but  he  hesitated  when  it  came  to  action.  For  him  the  motto 
of  the  Cordelier  leader  would  have  to  be  modified  to: 
Audacity,  more  audacity,  and  then  no  more  audacity. 

Still  he  was  the  Danton  of  the  second  republic  as  Gambetta 
was  of  the  third.  Of  the  three  men  Ledru  was  probably 
the  least  great,  but  all  had  the  same  general  policy  and  posi- 
tion. All  three  were  opportunists,  opposing  the  uncom- 
promising attitude  of  a  Robespierre,  a  Louis  Blanc,  a  Madier 
de  Montjau.  All  three  were  ready  to  unite  with  the  more 
moderate  party  of  a  Brissot,  of  a  Lamartine,  of  a  Thiers, 
and  disliked  the  extreme  policies  of  the  Hebertists,  the 
Blanquists,  the  communards.  In  private  life  all  three  were 
generous  in  financial  matters  and  fond  of  good  living.  All 
three,  finally,  were  great  orators,  intense  patriots,  ardent 
democrats,  leaders  of  the  sane  wing  of  the  radical  party. 

Another  leader  whom  Ledru  resembled  was  Mirabeau. 
His  oratorical  style  and  gestures  were  so  similar  that  he  was 
accused  of  imitating  Mirabeau  consciously.  Like  the  earlier 
tribune  Ledru  had  the  peculiar  ability  of  assimilating  a  vast 
quantity  of  erudition  at  a  moment's  notice  and  of  present- 
ing it  to  an  assembly  in  a  fashion  so  marvelously  clear  and 
with  a  grasp  of  the  subject  so  great  that  it  would  seem  as 
though  he  had  studied  it  for  years. 


^iS   LEDRU-ROLLIN  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC    [572 

Ledru-Rollin  was  always  an  optimist ;  the  triumph  of  his 
ideas  he  saw  ahva}^s  at  hand.  He  was  generous  and  ex- 
pended his  entire  fortune  and,  with  his  wife's  consent,  a 
large  part  of  her  fortune  in  republican  propaganda  and  aid 
to  unfortunate  companions.  He  was  fond  of  luxury  and 
the  good  things  of  life;  in  Paris  he  kept  a  fine  house.  He 
was  fond  of  the  fine  arts,  frequenting  the  theatre  and  pur- 
chasing the  works  of  such  artists  as  his  friend,  David 
d'Angers.  He  was  loyal  to  his  friends  and  their  attachment 
to  him  never  faltered.  He  was  vain;  in  later  life  he  even 
dyed  his  hair.  He  was  conceited  and  because  of  this  some- 
times wounded  his  friends.  He  was  superficial ;  he  quickly 
mastered  what  he  read,  but  he  usually  read  only  one  side 
of  a  question.  This  appeared  most  clearly  in  his  work 
written  in  exile,  La  Decadence  d'Angleterre.  His  honest}/- 
has  remained  without  a  stain  in  spite  of  the  innumerable 
attacks  on  it  by  his  adversaries.  His  consistency  has  al- 
ready been  mentioned. 

In  what  does  Ledru-Rollin's  importance  in  history  consist? 
In  the  first  place  he  was  one  of  the  greatest  French  orators 
of  the  nineteenth  century.  Louis  Blanc,  Caussidiere,  Deles- 
cluze,  Remusat,  Thiers,  all  his  contemporaries  admitted  his 
eloquence.  In  the  second  place  he  was  the  chief  advocate  of 
those  radical  reforms  which  have  since  gained  general  ac- 
ceptance. Thirdly  under  the  second  empire  he  was  the 
centre  of  one  of  those  rare  groups  which  maintained  in  its 
purity  the  republican  tradition.  Lastly  he  was  the  most 
consistent  proposer  of  universal  suffrage  under  the  July 
monarchy,  its  organizer  in  a  practical  form  under  the  second 
republic,  its  ardent  defender  against  modifications  under 
Louis  Napoleon;  when  all  else  is  forgotten  about  him,  he 
will  still  live  in  France  as  the  Father  of  Universal  Suffrage. 


APPENDIX 

French  Versions  of  Unpublished  Manuscripts 

Chapter  III,  Page  49.     Leon  de  Maleville  to  Garnier-Pages, 
February  24,  1848;  7  P.  M. 

"  Mon  cher  Garnier-Pages, 

"  Nommez  a  I'instant  meme  un  delegue  au  gotivernement 
provisoire  au  ministere  de  la  guerre  et  au  ministere  de 
Tinterieur,  Les  ordres  de  M.  Odilon  Barrot  ne  sont  plus  suivis 
de  personne. 

"  Je  ne  puis  me  charger  de  cette  mission  pour  I'interieur; 
ne  songez  pas  a  moi.  Je  vous  le  repete  pour  le  vingtieme  f  ois : 
Quetez  des  noms  connus  et  eminemment  populaires. 

"  Tout  a  vous.     Leon  de  Maleville."  ^ 

Chapter   IV,    Page   62.     Ledru   to  Dudont   aine,    February 
20,  1849. 

"  Je  vous  remercie  mille  fois  de  I'exemplaire  de  ma  medaille 
que  vous  avez  bien  voulu  me  faire  remettre. 

"  On  se  congoit  mal  soi-meme ;  mais  mes  amis  et  toutes  les 
personnes  qui  I'ont  vue  trouvent  que  c'est  le  portrait  le  plus 
ressemblant  qui  ait  ete  fait  de  moi.  II  est  d'une  exactitude 
parfaite. 

"  Dites  bien  a  I'artiste  combien  je  lui  suis  reconnaissant 
d'avoir  bien  voulu  me  consacrer  I'experience  d'un  talent  aussi 
eprouve  que  le  sien. 

"  Croyez,  Monsieur,  a  toute  la  gratitude  de  votre  bien  devoue, 
Ledru-Rollin."  ^ 

1  LR  Papers  i :  240. 

2  At  Bagnol-sur-Ceze,  No.  105. 

573]  419 


4JO  APPENDIX  [574 

Chapter  V,  Page  81.     Subervie  to  Ledru,  Alarch  19,  1848. 

"  Mon  cher  collegiie, 

"  Vos  ennemis  sont  aussi  les  miens.  On  vous  travaille,  on 
me  travaille,  parce  qu'on  sait  que  nos  principes  sont  les  memes. 
J'ai  besoin  de  causer  avec  vous.  J'irai  vous  trouver  demain 
matin. 

"  Tout  a  vous,  General  Subervie."  ^ 

Chapter  V,  Page  82.     Jacques  Cavaignac  to  Ledru,  March 
7,  1848. 

"  Voici,  Monsieur,  le  nom  de  I'enfant  dont  je  vous  ai  parle 
avant-hier:  Charles  Victor  Peter,  age  de  sept  ans  et  quelques 
mois.  Fils  d'ouvrier,  ce  qui  lui  convient  le  mieux  c'est 
I'education  qui  le  mettra  en  mesure  de  gagner  sa  vie,  d'avoir 
son  pain  au  bout  de  ses  doigts,  ce  que  le  temps  6u  nous  vivons 
doit  nous  faire  apprecier  plus  que  jamais. 

"  Vous  m'assurez  de  la  nomination  au  ministere  de  mon  fils, 
dont  chacun  me  parlait  hier;  j'avais  besoin  de  me  rappeler 
notre  conversation.  J'ai  d'ailleurs,  maintenant,  la  conviction 
que  mon  fils  refuserait.  Le  nommer  ministre  ne  serait  done 
que  le  renvoyer  comme  gouverneur. 

"  Vous  m'interdisez  les  remerciements.  Monsieur,  sans 
m'interdire  les  obligations  de  la  reconnaissance.  Croyez  que 
personne  ne  songe  plus  que  moi  au  fardeau  dont  vous  devez 
etre  ecrase,  et  n'est  pourtant  plus  rassure  en  vous  le  voyant 
porter. 

"  Veuillez  croire  aussi  a  tous  mes  sentiments,  J.  Cavaignac. 

"  Je  cherche  sans  les  trouver  ces  pauvres  gens  auxquels  mon 
fils  s'interessait,  et  dont  vous  m'avez  parle."  - 

Chapter  IX,  Page  141.     Taschereau  to  Ledru,  undated  but 
probably  March,  1848. 

"  Mon  cher  ami, 

'  LR  Papers  i :  212. 
*LR  Papers  i :  201. 


eye"]  APPENDIX  42 1 

"  J'ai   absolument,   absolumeiit  besoin   de  vous   parler   im- 
mediamment.     Je  ne  serai  pas  long,  mais  je  serai  instructif. 
"  T.  a.  v.,  J.  Taschereau."  ^ 

Chapter  IX,  Page  148.     Landrin  to  Ledru,  April  18,  1848, 
II  P.  M. 

"  Mon  cher  ami, 

"  Je  suis  si  souffrant  ce  soir  que  je  ne  puis  aller,  comme  j'en 
avais  le  projet,  te  serrer  le  main;  j'aurai  bien  voulu  aller  me 
recorder  aupres  de  toi.  Ici  nous  avons  passe  une  triste  journee 
et  pleine  d'incertitudes.  Si  tu  avais  a  me  faire  dire  un  mot, 
je  suis  toujours  a  ta  disposition. 

"  Je  voulais  enfin  te  parler  d'une  affaire  particuliere  a  toi, 
dont  Calon  (?)  m'a  dit  un  mot.  J'irai  demain  mercredi  soir ; 
je  te  trouverai,  n'est-ce  pas?  Si  tu  n'y  es  pas,  fais  moi  dire 
par  un  des  tiens,  Elias  [Regnault]  ou  autre,  quand  je  pourrai 
te  voir. 

"  Je  n'ai  pas  regu  de  billets  d'invitation  pour  la  fete  de  jeudi ; 
je  le  reg-rette  ne  fut  ce  que  parce  que  je  ne  serais  pas  aupres 
de  vous  autres  en  cas  d'alerte.  Si  tu  le  peux,  fais  m'en  envoyer 
ou  au  parquet  ou  chez  moi  Rue  d'Enfer  37.  On  m'a  dit  qu'il 
y  aura  des  dames.     Est-ce  vrai  ? 

"  Le  Moniteur  de  ce  matin  a  commence  a  parler.  Mais  ce 
n'est  pas  assez,  pour  Dieu.  Que  tes  collegues  t'ecoutent  ou 
tout  se  gatera.  Quoi  qu'il  en  soit,  je  suis  a  toi.  Mais  j'avoue 
que  je  regretterais  profondement  en  ce  moment  une  levee  de 
boucliers  ou  un  nom  que  j'aime  et  j'estime  se  trouverait  force- 
ment  accole  a  des  noms  sans  avenir  et  sans  portee. 

"  A  toi,  bien  devoue,  Landrin."  - 

Chapter  XII,   Page   173.     Landrin   to   Ledru,   undated  but 
probably  May  7,  1848. 

"  Mon  cher  ami, 

"J'ai  vainement  attendu  Jules  Favre  chez  le  ministre  de  la 

^  LR  Papers  i :  199. 
*  LR  Papers  i :  214. 


422  APPENDIX  [576 

justice.  J 'en  conclus  que  tu  n'as  pas  ecrit  a  Favre  ou  que  tu 
as  change  d'avis. 

'*  Permettez-moi  de  te  le  dire,  mon  vieux  camarade,  je  serais 
desole  que  tu  prisses  ce  dernier  parti.  Tu  dois,  si  on  t'accepte 
sur  le  pied  d'egalite,  entrer  au  pouvoir  et  y  porter  ton  drapeau, 
ta  signification.  Refuser,  c'est  declarer  la  guerre,  et  declarer  la 
guerre,  c'est  t'insurger  contre  le  principe  avant  qu'on  I'ait 
meconnu  et  viole  et  precisement  au  moment  6u  on  te  convie  a 
participer  a  son  application,  a  concourir  a  nous  donner  les 
consequences.  II  faut  etre  net  et  logique.  Si  M.  de  Lamartine 
et  toi  formez  les  elements  du  pouvoir  nouveau,  tout  est  sauve, 
tout  pour  I'ete  au  moins.  Ceci  dit,  il  faut  que  M.  de  Lamartine 
pese  de  son  poids  sur  la  chambre  et  determine  son  choix.  Toi, 
il  faut  que  le  peuple  sache  de  suite  cette  alliance  et  qu'ainsi 
les  defiances  soient  desarmees,  au  moins  celles  des  hommes 
honnetes  et  devoues  qui  craignent  pour  le  salut  de  la  cause  du 
peuple  et  qui  croient  en  toi  qui  les  represente.  Quant  aux 
autres,  ils  peuvent  bien  prendre  ton  nom  pour  pretexte.  Mais 
ils  ne  veulent  de  toi  ni  des  autres ;  il  ne  veulent  que  d'eux  et 
leur  sanglante  dictature. 

"  J'ajoute  que  si,  ce  qu'a  Dieu  ne  plaise,  cela  n'etait  pas 
compris  par  la  chambre  et  qu'elle  n'acceptait  pas  cette  com- 
binaison,  tu  rentrerais  dans  Topposition,  mais  alors  encore  je 
n'accepte  que  I'opposition  avec  ses  moyens  reguliers,  sa  presse, 
ses  societes  fonctionnant  regulierement  et  pesant  sur  la  chambre 
de  toute  I'autorite  morale  de  la  raison.  Quant  a  un  autre  genre 
d'opposition,  celle  armee  et  menaqante,  meme  en  ce  cas,  je  ne 
I'admets  pas;  je  ne  I'admets  que  si  la  chambre  veut  renverser 
la  forme  repuhlicaine.  C'est  un  droit  que  je  ne  lui  reconnais 
pas;  le  people  lui-meme  tout  entier  n'a  pas  ce  droit.  II  ne 
pent  pas  plus  ne  pas  etre  republicain  qu'on  n'a  le  droit  de 
renoncer  a  sa  liberte  individuelle. 

"A  toi.     A  demain  matin,  Landrin."  ^ 

^  LR  Papers  l :  217. 


577]  APPENDIX  423 

Chapter  XII,  Page  173.     Landrin  to  Ledru,  date  indistinct 
but  probably  Alay  7,  1848. 

*'  Mon  ami, 

"  Je  te  serre  mille  fois  les  mains  pour  ce  que  tu  as  bien  voulu 
penser  a  faire  pour  mon  brave  et  pauvre  artiste  et  beau-frere; 
ce  que  tu  lui  donnes  est  au-dessus  de  mes  esperances. — Merci 
encore  pour  nous  tons,  mon  vieil  ami. 

"  Tu  sais,  et  je  t'ai  dit,  je  n'ai  pu  voir  Jules  Favre.  Je  I'ai 
attendu  jusqu'a  midi  chez  Cremieux.  Ne  le  voyant  pas  venir, 
j'ai  craint  que  tu  n'eusses  change  d'avis,  et  je  n'ai  pas  ose 
parler  a  Lamartine  que  j'ai  cependant  vu.  Je  suis  si  ecrase  de 
ma  journee  et  ai  la  tete  si  malade  que  je  n'irai  pas  ce  soir  au 
ministere,  au  moins  que  tu  n'aies  besoin  de  moi.  S'il  en  est 
ainsi,  a  quelle  qu'heure  que  ce  soit,  envoie  moi  prevenir  si  tu 
desires  que  je  fasse  une  demarche  quelquonque.  'Cette  nuit, 
deniain,  je  suis  ton  homme. 

"  J'espere  que  la  fameuse  combinaison  est  arretee.  Je  serai 
bien  heureux  de  I'apprendre.  Mais  de  toute  maniere  je  suis 
a  toi. 

"  Je  te  serre  les  mains,  Landrin."  ^ 

Chapter  XIV,  Page  206.     Marie  and  Ledru  to  the  Prefect 
of  Lower  Seine,  June  27,,  1848,  5  P.  M. 

"  Citoyen  prefet,  Des  factieux  ont  jete  Paris  dans  une  ex- 
treme agitation.  Le  concours  de  la  Garde  Nationale  de  votre 
departement  pent  ctre  utile.  Dirigez-la  en  toute  hate  sur  Paris, 
ainsi  que  les  bataillons  de  I'armee  dont  vous  pourrez  disposer. 
Le  ministre  de  la  guerre  a  du  donner  des  ordres  en  consequence 
cette  nuit.  Si  par  hasard  ils  n'etaient  point  arrives,  que  ceux-ci 
en  tiennent  lieu.     Salut  et  fraternite,  Ledru-Rollin,  Marie,"  ^ 

Chapter  XIV,  Page  207.     Executive  commission  to  Prefect 
of  Lower  Seine,  June  23,  1848,  10  P.  M. 

"  La  commission  du  pouvoir  executif  invite  le  prefet  de  la 

'  LR  Papers  i :  219. 

*  Lille  Library  Ms.  985,  No.  683. 


424  APPENDIX  [57g 

Seine  Inferieure  a  envoyer  de  suite  sur  Paris  toutes  les  troupes 
de  la  Garde  Nationale  et  la  ligne  dont  il  pourra  disposer. 
Ledru-Rollin,  Garnier-Pages,  Lamartine,  Marie.  Requerez  le 
chemin  de  fer  pour  transporter  les  troupes."  ^ 

Chapter  XV,  Page  219.     Carton  ( ?)   to  Ledru,  August  6, 
1848. 

*'  Mon  cher  Ledru, 

"  Je  viens  seulement  de  lire  le  rapport  de  M.  Bauchart  et 
votre  discours;  je  me  suis  toujours  tenu  a  distance  de  la  vie 
politique,  mais  je  ne  puis  en  ce  moment  resister  au  desir  de  vous 
feliciter.  J'ai  retrouve  dans  vos  paroles  chaleureuses  cette 
sincerite  et  cette  elevation  de  sentiment  que  depuis  si  long- 
temps  m'ont  attache  a  vous,  elles  suffirant  aux  gens  de  coeur 
pour  justifier,  s'il  en  etait  besoin,  la  purete  de  vos  intentions 
et  de  votre  conduite.  A  mes  yeux  le  proces  que  vous  fait  la 
commission  est  juge. 

"  Je  ne  me  serais  pas  permis  de  m'entretenir  d'une  emotion 
qui,  bienque  profonde  en  moi,  a  peu  d'importance  comme 
element  de  I'opinion  publique,  si  je  n'avais  trouve  chez  mes 
amis,  anciens  conservateurs  comme  moi,  les  sentiments  que 
j'ai  moi-meme  eprouves. 

"  Ce  petit  temoignage  de  sympathie  vraie  vous  sera  peut- 
etre  de  quelque  douceur  au  milieu  des  amertumes  de  la  vie 
publique. 

"  Tout  a  vous  de  bien,  A.  Carton."  ^ 

Chapter  XV,  Page  224.     Marrast  to  Creton,  August  20,  1848. 

"  Le  president  de  TAssemblee  Nationale  a  I'honneur  de  pre- 
venir  son  honorable  collegue,  M.  Creton,  que  s'il  persiste  a 
vouloir  adresser  des  interpellations  au  ministre  des  finances,  il 
aura  la  parole  immediamment  apres  la  lecture  du  proces- 
verbal."  ^ 

^  Lille  Library  Ms.  985,  No.  6&Z- 

*  LR  Papers  i :  244. 

*  LR  Papers  i :  227. 


579]  APPENDIX  425 

Chapter  XV,  Page  224.     Creton  to  Ledru,  August  20,  1848. 

"  M.  Creton  reqoit  a  I'instant  la  lettre  ci-inclus  de  M.  le 
President  de  I'Assemblee.  II  s'empresse  de  la  transmettre  a 
M.  Ledru-Rollin,  afin  qu'il  veuille  bien  se  trouver  a  Touverture 
de  la  seance.     Salut  et  f  raternite,  Creton."  ^ 

Chapter  XVII,  Page  253.  Ledru  to  Delescluze,  October,  1848. 

"  Citoyen, 

"  II  me  semble  que  vous  devenez  diablement  rare  depuis  le 
fameux  banquet.     Je  ne  vous  vois  plus. 

"  Nous  avons  besoin  de  vous  ce  soir  Rue  Taitbout  a  8^ 
du  soir.     N'y  manquez  pas,  je  vous  en  prie. 

"  A  vous.     Ledru-Rollin.     Le  lundi,  deux  heures." 

Note  in  the  margin :  "  Le  banquet  du  Fauborg  Poissiniere  " 
which  took  place  October  17.^ 

Chapter  XXII,  Page  341.     Minutes  of  committee  of  Moun- 
tain in  Schoelcher's  handwriting,  April  24,  1849. 

"  Nos  troupes  ont  quitte  le  port.  Les  soldats  de  la  republique 
sont  envoyes  en  Italic  pour  y  preter  I'appui  de  leur  presence, 
le  prestige  de  leur  nom,  et  au  besoin  la  puissance  de  leurs  armes 
a  la  restauration  du  pape  sur  son  trone  temporel  malgre  la 
volonte  du  peuple  romain.  La  republique  frangaise  va  servir 
ainsi  le  principe  monarchique  contre  le  principe  democratique, 
la  legitimite  princiere  contre  la  souverainete  populaire. 

"  Rome  affranchie  n'est  pas  assez  forte  pour  resister  a  la 
coalition  des  rois  et  des  royalistes  conjures.  Elle  succombera, 
mais  en  laissant  le  souvenir  d'un  gouvernement  qui  n'a  pas 
commis  un  seul  exces,  qui  s'est  toujours  conduit  avec  une 
dignite  admirable. 

"  Si  affliges  que  nous  soyons,  I'esperance  nc  nous  abandonne 
pas.  La  force  pent  comprimer  un  jour  le  developpement  de 
la  liberte,  mais  la  liberte  est  immortelle ;  elle  est  au-dessus  de  la 
force  comme  I'esprit  est  au-dessus  de  la  matiere.     Pie  IX  apres 

'  LR  Papers  i :  225. 

*  Lille  Library,  Delescluze  Papers. 


^26  APPENDIX  [580 

avoir  trahi  la  cause  de  la  nationalite  italienne  en  lan(;ant 
Tanathenie  sur  la  guerre  de  rindependance  s'etait  enfui  de 
Rome.  II  pourra  bien  y  rentrer  dans  les  fourgons  de  I'etranger, 
comme  les  Bourbons  rentrerent  en  France,  mais  il  n'aura 
d'autre  destin  que  celui  des  Bourbons.  La  haine  et  le  mepris 
des  Romains  peseront  toujours  sur  le  pontif  catholique  qui 
s'est  adresse  a  tous  les  rois  de  la  terre,  meme  a  la  Prusse 
schismatique  et  a  I'Angleterre  protestante,  pour  reconquerir 
a  main  armee  au  prix  du  sang  un  trone  de  vanite. 

"  Les  democrates  f  rangais  devaient  protester  contre  I'acte  de 
violence  liberticide  qui  va  se  consommer  sur  les  bords  du 
Tibre.  Les  representants  de  la  Montague  ont  decide  qu'ils 
donneraient  aux  Italiens  un  temoignage  de  leur  vive  sympathie 
en  formant  un  comite  specialement  charge  des  interets  de 
rindependance  italienne  et  dont  feront  toujours  partie  deux 
des  patriotes  ici  presents  a  Paris. 

'*  Ce  comite  est  compose  des  Citoyens  Lamennais,  Ledru- 
Rollin,  Baune,  Felix  Pyat,  et  Victor  Schoelcher.  II  vient  de  se 
constituer  en  nommant  pour  president  le  Cit.  Lamennais  et 
pour  secretaire  le  Cit.  V.  Schoelcher.  II  a  pour  but  I'affran- 
chissement  de  la  peninsule  entiere,  pour  devise :  solidarite  entre 
la  republique  frangaise  et  la  republique  italienne."  ^ 

^  Schoelcher  Papers  2 :  172-4. 


CRITICAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

All  the  works  mentioned  below  may  be  found  in  the  library  of  Co- 
lumbia University  unless  some  other  place  is  indicated  in  parentheses. 
They  may  also  be  found  in  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale  at  Paris  except 
the  following:  Argay,  Bertrand,  Freycinet,  Garnier-Pages  Volume  ii, 
and  Vielcastel  (to  be  found  in  the  Bibliotheque  de  la  Ville  de  Paris)  ; 
Gossez,  and  Leroux  (to  be  found  at  the  Sorbonne  library)  ;  Curtis, 
Foster  and  English,  Lorand,  and  Holyoake  (to  be  found  in  no  French 
library).  Sometimes,  however,  the  French  library  contains  only  a  dif- 
ferent edition  from  that  mentioned  in  this  list.  The  following  abbrevia- 
tions are  used  in  this  bibliography:  PL  for  New  York  Public  Library, 
Wash,  for  Congressional  Library  at  Washington,  HCL  for  Harvard 
College  Library,  BN  for  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  VP  for  Bibliotheque 
de  la  Ville  de  Paris. 

PART  I.    LEDRU-ROLLIANA 
(A)  Biographies 

Audebrand,  Philippe:  Cam^s  et  Croquis.     In  Revue  Bleue  46:  179-180. 

Brief  and  favorable. 
Blind,    Karl :    Personal    Reminiscences    of    Ledru-Rollin.      In    Fraser's 
Magazine  91 :  243-253. 

Inexact  and  unreliable.     Some  first-hand  information,   including 
some  that  contradicts  other  sources. 
Bouton,  Victor:  Profils  revolutionnaires  No.  3.     Paris,  1849. 

Valueless  account  by  extreme  revolutionist. 
Castille,  Hippolyte :   Portraits  historiques  No.  7 :   Ledru-^RoUin.     Paris, 
1863.     Sartorius. 

Good,  brief  account.    Likes  Ledru  but  considers  him,  a  mediocre 
statesman  although  superior  to  his  contemporaries. 
Charles,  Ernest:  Les  Hommes  de  1848:  Ledru-Rollin.     In  Revue  Bleue, 
4*  Serie,  10 :  225-230. 

Unfavorable  and  inexact. 
Courmeaux,  Eugene:  Ledru-Rollin.     Chalons,   1885,  Leroy  (BN). 

Best  biography  thus  far  published.     Laudatory,  praises  Ledru  in 
comparison  with    Gambetta.     Clear  and  complete  for  so   brief  an 
account. 
581]  427 


,3  CRITICAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [582 

Cuvillicr-Fleury:    Portraits  politiques  et   revolutionnaires.     Paris,    1852, 

Levy. 

Portrays  Ledru  as  influenced  alternately  by  Regnault  and  Delvau. 

Favre,  Jules :  Conferences  et  Melanges.     Paris,  1880,  Hetzel. 

Laudatory,  filled  with  extracts  from  speeches;  no  first-hand  in- 
formation. 
Gallois,  Napoleon :  Vie  politique  de  Ledru-Rollin.    Paris,  1850,  Dutertre 
(Wash.). 

Extremely  laudatory.     Ends  with  June  13,  1840.     Filled  with  ex- 
tracts from  speeches;  little  original  material.     Believes  that  Ledru 
was  not  sufficiently  revolutionary. 
Hartmann,  Georges:  LedrunRollin.     In  La  Cite  4:  3-10  (BN). 

Best  account  for  period  of  childhood  and  youth. 
Ledru-Rollin,  Henrietta:  Introduction  to  Discours  politiques. 

Brief  and  naturally  laudatory. 
Mirecourt,  Eugene  de :  Les  Contemporains  No.  84 :  Ledru-Rollin.    Paris, 
1853,  Mirecourt  (Society  Library,  New  York). 

Absolutely   false   impressions   and   numerous    false    facts.     Only 
value  is  as  a  collection  of  calumnies. 
Quentin-Bauchart,  Pierre:  Silhouettes  de  1848:  Ledru-Rollin.    In  Nou- 
velle  Revue  16:  514-540. 

Conservative  but  fair.     Too  brief  to  have  great  value. 
Ulbach,  Louis :   Nos   Contemporains  No.  6 :  Ledru-Rollin.     Paris,   1869 
(BN). 

Highly  eulogistic.     Lacks  balance.     Contains  interview  with  min- 
ister of  the  interior. 
Vermorel,  A.:  Les  Hommes  de  1848   (pp.  146-185).     Paris,  1869,  Allo- 
nier  (Wash.). 
Fair,  full  of  quotations. 
Gaulois,  February  28,  1874  (BN). 

interview  with  Ledru,  elaborated  if  not  false. 
Caiman,  Alvin:  Ledru-Rollin  apres  1848.     Paris,  1921,  Rieder. 

Only  full  account  of  life  after  June  13,  1849. 
Levy-Guenot,  Roger: 

We  hope  to  see  appear  soon  a  book  on  the  life  of  Ledru-Rollin 
up  to  March  5.  184S.  The  erudite  part  on  the  banquet  campaign  of 
1847  has  already  been  published  in  the  Revolution  de  1848,  16 :  ir- 
28,  58-75. 
Various  unimportant  articles,  two  anonymous,  others  by  Audebrand, 
Blind,  Breynat,  Merzer,  Pressense.  Also  articles  by  C.  E.,  Bourget, 
Delvau,  Loudun,  Montepin  and  Calonne,  Normand  (BN).  .Another 
by  Lorand  (Bibliotheque  Royale.  Brussels).     Another  by  Holyoake 


c83]  CRITICAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY  429 

(Bishopsgate  Library,  London).     For  details  see  Caiman:  Ledru- 

Rollin  apres  1848. 
Divers  encyclopedia  articles. 
Divers  electoral  pamphlets,  absolutely  valueless.     (Mostly  BN.) 

(B)    Printed  Writings  of  Ledru-Rollin 

Discours  politiques  et  Ecrits  divers.     Paris,  1879,  Germer-Bailliere. 

An  incomplete  collection  of  his   speeches   and  essays,   edited  by 

Madame    Ledru-Rollin.     Omits   most   of   the   interruptions    in   the 

orations. 
Letters  and  speeches  in  divers  newspapers. 

Speeches  in  Moniteur  and  in  Comptes  rendus  des  Seances  de  I'Assemblee. 
Voix  du  Proscrit:  divers  articles. 
Almanach  des  Proscrits  pour  1850,  edited  by  Magen  (BN). 

Contains  a  letter  in  defense  of  his  financial  policy. 
Various  other  letters  and  articles  previous  to  1848. 
Various  other  letters  and  articles  after  June  13,  1849.     For  details  see 

Caiman  :  Lcdru-Rollin  apres  1848. 

(C)    Manuscripts  of  Ledru-zRollin 

Bibliotheque  de  la  Ville  de  Paris :  5  volumes  donated  by  Madame  Ledru- 
Rollin.  (In  notes  cited  as  LR  Papers.  The  numbering  of  the  vol- 
umes is  arbitrary.) 

Volumes  i,  2  and  3  contain  letters  of,  to,  or  concerning  Ledru. 
Volume  4  contains  family  papers ;  volume  5,  manuscripts  of  books, 
speeches,  etc. 

Bibliotheque  de  la  Ville  de  Paris :  14  other  cartons  and  7  journals  of 
domestic  expenses. 

Library  of  Bagnol-sur-iCeze :  No.  105 :  Letter  of  Dudont,  1849. 

Library  of  Lille:  Ms.  985,  No.  683:  Two  official  letters  of  executive 
commission,  1848. 

Library  of  Lille :  Delescluze  Papers :  Letter  to  Delescluze,  1848. 

Bibliotheque  de  la  Ohambre  des  Deputes;  Bibliotheque  de  la  16®  arron- 
dissement  de  Paris;  libraries  of  Angers,  Lille,  Rhcims,  Versailles, 
and  Brussels;  British  Museum  Library;  Collection  of  Mr.  Charles 
Feleky :  Miscellaneous  letters. 

All  these  deal  with  the  periods  before  or  after  that  contained  in 
this  thesis.     For  details  see  Caiman :  Ledru-Rollin  apres  1848. 


^^O  CRITICAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [584 

PART  II.     OTHER  MATERIAL 
(A)    Official  and  Semi-Official  Documents,  etc. 

Monitcur  Univcrsel 

The  official  newspaper  of  the  government,  containing  parliamen- 
tary debates,   reports  of  parliamentary  commissions,  laws,   decrees, 
political  trials,  and  official  versions  of  news. 
Compte  rendu  des  Seances  de  I'Assemblee  Nationale.     Paris,  1849,  Im- 

primerie  Nationale. 
Compte   rendu    des    Seances    de    I'Assemblee   Legislative.      Paris,    1849, 

Pankoucke. 
Quentin-Bauchart,  Alexandre:  Rapport  de  la  Commission  d'Enquete  sur 
ITnsurrection  qui  a  eclatee  dans  la  Journee  du  23  Juin  et  sur  les 
Evenements  du  15  Mai  1848.     Paris,  1848,  Henry. 
See  Chapter  XV. 
Affaire  du  13  Juin  1849,  Seant  a  Versailles ;  Complot,  Attentat. 

Volume  I  contains  the  preliminary  depositions ;  volume  2,  the 
stenographic  report  of  the  trial  as  found  in  the  Moniteur;  volume 
3,  the  documents  seized.  The  first  two  volumes  can  be  found  only 
at  the  French  ministry  of  justice;  the  invaluable  third  volume  can 
be  located  nowhere. 
Anderson,  Frank:  Constitutions  and  other  selected  Documents  illustra- 
tive of  the  History  of  France.  Minneapolis,  1908,  Wilson. 
Bulletins  de  la  Repuhlique.     Paris,  1848,  Bureau  Central  (BN). 

See  Chapter  IX. 
French  Revolution  of  1848. 

A   collection    of   newspapers,    broadsides,    and   popular   songs    in 
Columbia  University  Library.     Similar  and  more  complete  collec- 
tions may  be  found  BN  and  VP. 
Murailles  Revolutionnaires.    Edited  by  A.  Delvau.     Paris,  1868,  Picard. 

Collection  of  revolutionary  placards. 
Affiches  Rouges  :  Curiosites  Revolutionnaires.    Edited  by  Bernard.    Paris, 
1851,  Giraud  and  Gegnea. 
Similar  to  Murailles  Revolutionnaires  but  not  as  complete. 
Vie  de  Paris.    Annual  edited  by  Passerieu.    Paris,  1898-1922,  Lemerre. 

Collection   of   miscellaneous    facts    dealing  with    Paris    past   and 
present. 

Saulcey,  L.  F.  S.  C. :  Souvenirs  numismatiques  de  la  Revolution  de  1848. 
Paris,  1859,  Ruisseau. 
Replicas  of  medals  made  in  1848. 


285]  CRITICAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY  431 

Lirieux,  A.:  Assemblee  Nationale  Comique.     Paris,  1850,  Levy  (BN). 

Best  collection  of  cartoons  dealing  with  period. 
Bulletin  Municipal  Officiel  de  Paris. 

(B)    Unpublished  Manuscripts 
Archives  departementales  du  Nord:  Dossier  on  Ledru-Rollin. 
Archives  Nationales :  Documents  on  prefects. 
Bibliotheque  Nationale:  Schoelcher  Papers,  NAF  22134-5. 

Circourt  Papers,  NAF  21684. 
Bibliotheque  de  la  Chambre  des  Deputes :  Durand-Savoyat  Papers,  Ms. 

1440. 
Bibliotheque  Parent  de  Rosan   (i6th  arrondissement  of  Paris)  :  Parent 

de  Rosan:  Memoires  sur  la  Revolution  de  1848,  67:  167-187. 
Bibliotheque  de  la  Ville  de  Paris :  Liesville  Collection :  Revolution  de 

1848. 

( C)    Letters 
Arago,  Etienne:  Letter  in  Reveil,  1868  (B,N). 
Barthelemy-St.  Hilaire :  Papiers.      In  Revue  politique  et  parlenientaire, 

51 :  318-324.    Originals  at  Victor  Cousin  Library  in  the  Sorbonne. 
Contains  valuable  information  as  to  the  choosing  of  the  executive 

commission. 
Bernard,  Martin :  Un  Commissaire-General   de  la  Republique  a  Lyon. 

Edited  by  L.  Levy- Schneider.    Lyons,  1913.     Rey.  Originals  at  St. 

Etienne  Library  (BN). 
Contains  account  of  flight  to  Belgium  by  Montagnard  companion 

of  Ledru. 
Bonde,  Baroness :  Paris  in  1848.    London,  1904,  Fisher,  Unvvin. 

Letters  of  clever  but  superficial  English  Orleanist,  reflecting  ab- 
surdities of  conservative  opinion.     Ledru  is  her  hete  noir. 
Bugeaud,    Marshal :    Letter.      In  Revolution   de   1848,   3 :  193.     Among 

Faucher  documents. 
Cremieux,  Adolphe:   En   1848,  Discours  et  Lettres.     Paris,    1883,  Levy 

(BN). 
Faucher,  Leon :  Biographic  et  Correspondence.     Paris,  1888,  Thomas. 
Lamennais,  Felicite :  Oeuvres  Inedites.     Paris,  1866,  Dentu. 
Mazzini,  Giuseppe:  Scritti.     Rome,   1906,  Galeatti   (Wash.). 
Proudhon,  Pierre- Joseph  :  Correspondence.     Paris,  1875,  Lacroix. 
Ruge,  Arnold :  Briefwechsel  und  Tagebuchbliitter.     Berlin,  1886,  Weid- 

mann  (PL). 


^.o  CRITICAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [586 

Sand,  George :  Letters.     London,  1886,  Ward  and  Downey. 
Seze,  Aurelian  de:  La  Journee  du  13  Juin.     In  Revolution  de  1848,  10: 
19-22. 

Legitimist  standpoint. 
Stern,  Daniel:  Lettres  republicaines.     Paris,  1848,  Proux. 

Brief,  discursive,  declamatory,  fair-minded,  philosophical. 

(D)    Diaries  and  Memoirs 

Achard,  Amadee :    Souvenirs   personnels   d'Emeutes  et  de  Revolutions. 
Paris,  1872,  Levy  (PL). 

Adam,   Juliette :   Roman   de  mon  Enfance  et    de  ma  Jeunesse.     Paris, 
1902,  Lemerre. 

Alison,  Sir  A. :  Some  Account  of  my  Life  and  Writings.     Edinburgh, 
1883,  Blackwood. 

Alton-Shee,  Comte  d':  Souvenirs  de  1847  et  de  1848.    Paris,  1879,  Drey- 
fous  (HCL). 

Ambes,  Baron:  Intimate  Memoirs  of  Napoleon  III.    London,  1912,  Paul 
(PL). 

Barrot,  C.  H.  Odilon :  Memoires  Posthumes.  Paris,  1874-6,  Charpentier. 
Extremely  cold,  unfair,  tortuous,  conceited,  dry  account  by  politi- 
cal adversary  of  Ledru.  Filled  with  extracts  from  speeches.  Al- 
ways considered  himself  right  and  never  admitted  that  he  had 
committed  a  mistake.  Many  untrue  rumors  wilfully  stated  as  true 
facts ;  many  facts  distorted.     An  apologia  pro  vita  sua  badly  done. 

Castellane,  Comte  de :  Journal.     Paris,  1895-7,  Plon-Nourrit. 

Reactionary  general,  usually  sensible  but  sometimes  absurd.    Deals 
chiefly  with  military  life. 

Caussidiere,  Marc :  Memoirs.     London,  1848,  Bentley. 

Fairly  reliable,  moderately  partial  memoirs  by  prefect  of  police. 

Circourt,  Adolphe  de:  Souvenirs  d'une  Mission  a  Berlin.     Paris,  1909, 
Picard. 

Conservative  diplomat,  friend  of  Lamartine. 

Commissaire,   Sebastien:    Memoires  et   Souvenirs.     Lyons,    1888,   Meton 
(Wash.). 
Disappointingly  little  on  Legislative  Assembly  by  Montagnard. 

Du  Camp,  Maxime:  Souvenirs  de  I'Annee  1848.     Paris,  1876.  Hachette 

(HCL). 

Chiefly  military  experiences  of  conservative. 
Etex,  A.:  Souvenirs  d'un  Artiste.     Paris,  1877  Dentu  (PL). 
Artist  and  friend  of  Ledru. 


■587]  CRITICAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY  433 

Falloux,   Frederic  A.   P.   de:    Memoires   d'un   Royaliste,      Paris,    1888, 
Perrin. 
Wily  legitimist  presents  only  half  the  facts.. 
Freycinet,  Charles  de:  Souvenirs  1848-1878.     Paris,  1912,  Delagrave. 
[Reminiscences  of  Polytechnician,  later  premier  of  third  republic. 
Got,  Edmond :  Journal  1822-1901.     Paris,  1910,  Plon. 

Deals  chiefly  with  matters  of  iine  arts. 
Herzen,  Alexandre:  Erinnerungen.    Berlin,  1907,  Wiegand  and  Grieben 
(BN). 
Russian  revolutionist,  later  friend  of  Ledru. 
Houssaye,  Arsene:  Confessions.     Paris,  1885-91,  Dentu. 

Deals  chiefly  with  artistic  questions. 
Hugo,  Victor:  iChoses  Vues.     Paris,  1913,  Imprimerie  Nationale. 

Interesting  and  instructive  first-hand  information  is  overwhelmed 
by  badly-digested  second-hand  information. 
Joigneaux,  Pierre :  Souvenirs  historiques.    Paris,  1891,  Flammarion  (BN). 
Interesting  memoirs  of   Montagnard,   revealing  some  new   facts. 
Good  account  of  electoral  trip  to  Le  Mans ;  little  else  on  Ledru. 
Lefrangais,    Gustave :   !Souvenirs   d'un   Revolutionnaire.     Brussels,    1902, 
Admer. 

Ultra-revolutionary  socialist;   dislikes   Ledru.     Difficult   and   ob- 
scure style. 
Lesseps,  Ferdinand  de :   Recollections   of  Forty  Years.     London,   1887, 
Chapman  and  Hall. 

Includes  defense  of  his  actions  as  envoy  at  Rome. 
Marnay,    A.   J.    de :    Memoires    secretes    et    Temoignages   authentiques. 
Paris,  187s,  Librairie  des  Bibliophiles  (BN). 
'Conservative  deputy. 
Maupas,  C.  E.  de :  Memoires  sur  le  Second  Empire.    Paris,  1885,  Dentu. 
Unfair  account  by  friend  of  Louis  Napoleon. 

Melun,  Vicomte  Armand  de:  Memoires.     Paris,  1891,  Leday  (PL). 

Prominent  philanthropist,  fair-minded  conservative. 
Nadaud,  Martin :  Memoires  de  Leonard,  ancien  Gargon-Ma<;on.     Bour- 

ganeuf,  1895,  Duboueix  (Wash.). 
Normanby,  Marquess  of  :  A  Year  of  Revolution.   London,  1857,  Longman. 
Diary  of  British  ambassador.     Extremely  prejudiced  conservative 
whig  with  little  insight  into  the  French  spirit.     Ledru  is  his  bete 
noir;  he  considers  him  a  cowardly  demagogue. 
Persigny,  Due  de:  Memoires.     Paris,  1896,  Plon-Nourrit. 

Violently  prejudiced  Bonapartist;  distorts  facts  outrageously. 


434  CRITICAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [588 

Poumies  de  la  Siboutie,  Dr.:  Souvenirs.     Paris,  1918,  Plon  (PL). 
Prejudiced  partisan  of  Guizot  gives  little  information. 

Quentin-Bauchart,   Alexandre:    Etudes   et   Souvenirs   sur   la  Deuxieme 
Republique  et  le  Second  Empire.    Paris,  igoi,  Plon-Nourrit  (Wash.). 
Extreme    conservative    deputy,    but   usually    fair.     Admires    few- 
people  except  himself;  admires  neither  Ledru  nor  Barrot. 
Ranc,  Arthur:  Souvenirs,  Correspondence.     Paris,  1913,  Comely. 
St.  Ferreol,  Amadee:  Mes  Memoires.   Brioude,  1887-1892,  Chauvet  (BN). 
Les  Proscrits  en  Belgique.     Brussels,  1870,  Mouc- 
quart  (HCL). 
iMontagnard  gives  little  information  prior  to  June  13,  1849. 
Sand,  George:  Souvenirs  de  1848.     Paris,  1882,  Calmann-Levy  (PL). 

Reflective  rather  than  historical. 
Sarcey,  Francisque :  Journal  de  Jeunesse.     Paris,  1903,  Bibliotheque  des 

Annales  (Wash.). 
iScheurer-Kestner,  A. :  Souvenirs  de  ma  Jeunesse.    Paris,  1905,  Charpen- 

tier  (Wash.). 
Senior,  Nassau  William :  Journals  kept  in  France  and  Italy.     London, 
1871,  King. 
Conservative  whig;  writes  light  but  not  superficial  account." 
Tocqueville,  Alexandre  de :  Souvenirs.     Paris,  1893,  Calmann-Levy. 

Bitterly  satirical,  brilliant,  self-confident. 
Veron,  L. :  Memoires  d'un  Bourgeois  de  Paris.     Paris,  1853-5,  Martinon. 

Unfair  supporter  of  Thiers. 
Vielcastel,  Comte  Horace  de :  Memoires  1851-1864.    Berne,  1880-4,  Haller. 
Malicious,  slanderous  gossip. 

(E)    Histories  by  Contempor,\ries 

Anonymous :  Journees  illustrees  de  la  Revolution  de  1848.     Paris,  1848. 
Plon  (PL). 
Detailed,  colorless  account  to  accompany  illustrations. 

Anonymous :  Le  Risquons-tout  en  1848.     Mouscron,  1848,  Lerouge-Benoit 
(BN). 

Very  prejudiced  against  the  affair,  superficial,  emphasizes  result- 
ing trial. 

Arago,  Etienne:  Les  Postes  en  1848.    Paris,,  1867,  Dentu  (BN). 

Personal  account  relating  almost  solely  to  his  own  ministry. 

Arcay,  Joseph  de :  Indiscretions  Contemporaines.     Paris,  1884,  Calmann- 
Levy  (VP). 


289]  CRITICAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY  435 

Babaud-Laribiere,  L. :   Histoire  de  I'Assemblee  Nationale  Constituante. 
Paris,  1850,  Levy  (BN). 

Brightly-written,  just  account  by  moderate  deputy,  emphasizing 
events  in  which  he  took  part.     Friendly  to  many,  including  Ledru 
and  Cavaignac.     Dislikes  Marrast,  Garnier-Pages,  and  Louis  Napo- 
leon. 
Beaumont- Vassy,  E.  F. :  Histoire  de  mon  Temps.     Paris,  1855-7,   Per- 
rotin(PL). 
Extremely  conservative  but  fairly  just. 
Bedeau,  General  M.  A. :  24  Fevrier  1848.     In  Revue  de  Paris  i8g8,  3 : 

449-478. 
Blanc,  Louis :  Histoire  de  la  Revolution  de  1848.     Paris,  1870,  Librairie 
Internationale. 
Just,  socialist  account  of  his  own  conduct. 
Blanqui,  Auguste:  Reponse.     Paris,  1848  (BN). 

Brief  and  passionate  defense  against  Taschereau  accusations. 
Bouton,  Victor :  Attentat  de  la  Police  centre  la  Souverainete  du  Peuple. 
Paris,  1848  (BN). 
Absurd  account  by  ultra-Blanquist. 
Brougham  and  Vaux,  Henry,  Lord :  Letter  to  the  Marquess  of  Lans- 
downe  on  the  late  Revolution  in  France.     London,  1848,  Ridgeway. 
A  generalizing  essay  showing  little  knowledge  and  less  political 
foresight.     A  stupid  indictment  of  the  radicals. 
Cabet,    Etienne:    Insurrection    du   23   Juin.      Paris,    1848,    Librairie    du 
Populaire. 
Hasty  and  partial  account  by  leader  of  Utopian  socialists. 
Capefigue,  J.  B.  H.  R. :  La  Societe  et  les  Gouvernements  de  I'Europe. 
Paris,  1849,  Amyot. 
Biased  conservative. 
Carnot,  Hippolyte:  Le  Ministere  de  I'lnstruction  Publique  et  des  Cultes 
depuis  le  24  Fevrier  jusqu'au  5  Juin   1848.     Paris,   1848,  Pagnerre 
(B.N). 
Good  account  of  ministry  of  education  by  its  head. 
Carnot,  Hippolyte  :  Recit  du  24  Fevrier.    In  Revolution  de  1848,  6 :  20-33. 
Castille,  Hippolyte:  Histoire  de  la  Seconde  Republique  Frangaisc.    Paris, 
1855,  Lecou  (Wash.). 

Fair-minded,  liberal  Bonapartist.     Sympathetic  to  I^dru;  dislikes 
Barrot  and  Marrast. 
Chamier,  Frederick :  Review  of  the  French  Revolution  of  1848.    London, 
1849,  Reeves,  Benham. 

Typically   conservative  account,   sometimes   fair,   more  often  ab- 
surd.    Almost  wholly  secondary. 


,-,5  CRITICAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [590 

Chenu,  Adolphe:  Les  Conspirateurs.     Paris,  1850,  Gamier. 

One  of  several  pamphlets  by  unmasked  police  spy.     Unreliable, 
malicious,  probably  to  a  large  extent  invented. 
Considerant,  Victor:  Journee  du  13  Juin.     Paris,  1849,  Levy. 

Moderately  clear  apology  for  fiasco  by  one  of  its  leaders.     More 
rhetoric  than  facts. 
Corkran,  J.  F. :  History  of  the   National  Constituent  Assembly.     New- 
York,  1849,  Harper. 

Rather    superficial,    fairly    unbiased,    but    with    conservative   ten- 
dency.    Thinks  Ledru  was  a  bluffer. 
Darimon,  Alfred :  A  travers  une  Revolution.     Paris,  1884,  Dentu. 

Largely  a  biography  of  Proudhon. 
Delord,    Taxile:    Histoire   du    Second    Empire.      Paris,    1875,    Germer- 

Bailliere. 
Delvau,   Alfred :    Histoire  de  la  Revolution   de   Fevrier.      Paris,    1850, 
Garnier. 

Poor  partisan   account  by  Ledru's  private  secretary.     More  dis- 
cussion than  history.     Socialist  and  Blanquist  who  worships  Ledru 
but  thinks  he  was  not  sufficiently  revolutionary.    Diffuse  and  philo- 
sophical but  not  deep.     Poor  style. 
Drevet,  Pere:  Mysteres  de  I'Hotel  de  Vilne.     Paris,  1850,  Garnier. 

Account  by  radical.    Disliked  Garnier-Pages  but  liked  Ledru  and 
Lamartine. 
Faure,  Philippe:  Journal  d'un  Combattant  de  Fevrier.     Jersey,  1859,  Le 

Feuvre  (BN). 
Fonvielle,  Wilfred  de:   Banquet  des  Ecoles.     In  Nouvelle  Revue  no: 
470-487. 
Le  13  Juin  1849.    In  Revolution  de  1848,  8 :  459- 
475. 
One  of  the  minor  radical  leaders. 

Forster,  K. :  Du  Royaume  a  I'Empire.     Paris,  1854,  Firmin-Didot  (PL). 
Foster,   G.   G.,   and   English,    T.  D. :   The    French   Revolution  of    1848. 
Philadelphia,  1848,  Zieber  (PL). 

Gallois,  Leonard :   Histoire  de  la  Revolution  de  1848.     Paris,    1849-50, 
Naud  (BN). 

Fair-minded  radical ;  admires  Ledru.    Wholly  secondary  material. 
Gamier-Pages,  Louis- Antoine :  Histoire  de  la  Revolution  de  1848.    Paris, 
1864-1872,  Pagnerre  (Volumes  9- 11  in  HCL). 

Remarkably  impartial  though  it  naturally  over-emphasizes  his 
own  part.  Best  source  on  meetings  of  the  provisional  government, 
less  full  on  those  of  the  executive  commission.     Most  detailed  of 


2C)i]  CRITICAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY  437 

the  contemporary  accounts.     Too  fond  of  imagining  arguments  at 
conferences  whereof  he  knew  only  by  hearsay  {e.  g.  cabals).     In 
last  volumes  relies  less  on  his  own  experiences  and  more  on  existing 
printed  material. 
Girardin,  Emile  de :  Bon  Sens,  Bonne  Foi.     Paris,  1848,  Levy. 

Eulogy  on  himself  by  well-known  journalist;   accompanied  by  a 
few  general  facts. 
Granier  de  Cassagnac,  A.  B. :  Histoire  de  la  Chute  du  Roi  Louis  Phil- 
ippe L     Paris,  1857,  Plon. 

Conservative  account,  chiefly  secondary,  by  bigoted  Bonapartist. 
Guyon,  Leon :  L'Odysee  d'un  Candidat,  Charles  Granger.    Le  Mans  1893 
Drouin  (BN). 

Invaluable  for  Ledru's  relations  with  the  Sarthe.    An  extract  was 
reprinted  in  the  Revolution  de  1848,  2 :  257-265. 
Lacratelle,   Henri    de :   Lamartine  and  his   Friends.     New   York,    1880, 
Putnam, 

Christian  democrat  a  la  Buchez  relates  experiences  with  Lamar- 
tine and   others.     Probably  the  account  is   slightly  touched  up   in 
view  of  later  events. 
La  Hodde,  Lucien  de :  Histoire  des  Societes  secretes.     Paris,  1850,  Ju- 
lien,  Lanier. 

Distorted  account  by  unmasked  agent  provocateur  who  was  inti- 
mate with  leading  republicans.     Full  of  gall  and  venom. 
La  Hodde,  Lucien  de:  Naissance  de  la  Republique.    Paris,  1850,  Beaule. 

Even  worse  than  the  preceding  work. 
Lamartine,  Alphonse  de :  Histoire  de  la  Revolution  de  1848.     Leipzig, 

1849,  Brockhaus  and  Avenarius. 

Excessively  conceited  and  inaccurate,  declamatory,  eloquent. 
Lavarenne,  P.  C.  M.  de :  Le  Gouvernement  Provisoire  et  I'Hotel  de  Ville 
devoilles.     Paris,   1850,  Garnier. 

Violent  Blanquist;  gives  detailed  and  confused  account;    full  of 
calumnies. 
Lavarenne,   P.   C.   M.  de:  Les  Rouges  peints  par  Eux-memes.     Paris, 

1850,  Allouard.     (In  John  Crerar  Library,  Chicago.) 
Unbelievably  absurd   collection  of  calumnies ;   much   worse  than 

the  preceding  work. 
Laviron,  P.  E. :  Recit  authentique  de  la  Seance  revolutionnaire  tenue  a 

I'Hotel  de  Ville  la  Nuit  du  24  au  25  Fevrier  1848.    Paris,  1848,  Col- 

libert  (BN). 
Lemer,  Julien :  Les  Gouvernements  provisoires  en  France.     Paris,  1886, 

Simon  (BN). 


^^8  CRITICAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [592 

Leroux,  Pierre:  La  Greve  de  Samarez.     Paris,  1866,  Dentu.     (In  Sor- 

bonne  Library.) 
Longepied    and    Laugier :    Comite    Revolutionnaire ;    Club    des    Clubs. 

Paris,  1850,  Gamier  (BN). 
Declamatory  recital  by  two  prominent  members  of  the  Club  des 

Clubs,  enunciating  evolutionary  and  radical  doctrines. 

Lucas,  Alphonse:  Les  Clubs  et  les  Clubbistes.     Paris,  1851,  Dentu. 

Descriptive  list  of  clubs.     Strong  reactionary  tries  to  be  fair  but 
remains  unreliable. 
Marx,  Karl :  Dix-huit  Brumaire.     Paris,  1900,  Schleicher. 

Opinions  of  great  socialist  on  Louis  Napoleon,  his  friends,  and. 
his  enemies. 
Menand,  Louis :  Prologue  d'une  Revolution.     Paris,  1849,  Librairie  du 
Peuple. 
A  Montagnard  defends  Caussidiere. 

Mill,  John  Stuart :  Vindication  of  the  French  Revolution  of  February, 
1848.     In  his  Works  2 :  335-410.    London,  1859,  Parker. 

Brilliant    defense    of    the    revolution.      Annihilates    Brougham's 
flimsy  tirade. 
Nougarede  de  Fayet,  Auguste :  La  Verite  sur  la  Revolution  de  Fevrier 
1848.     Paris,  1850,  Amyot  (HCL). 
Fair-minded  account,  details  on  February  Days. 

Ollivier,  Emile :  L'Empire  liberal.     Paris,  1897,  Garnier. 

Volumes  i  and  2  of  this  apologia  pro  vita  sua  deal  with  the 
second  republic. 

Pouillet,  Claude :  La  Conservatoire  des  Arts  et  Metiers  pendant  la  Jour- 
nee  du  13  Juin  1849.     Paris,  1849,  Garnier  (BN). 

Invaluable  account  by  director  of  the  conservatory.  Gives  facts 
in  small  compass  followed  by  long  defense  of  his  own  conduct. 

Pyat,  Felix:  Lettres  d'un  Proscrit.     Paris,  1851,  Magen. 

Regnault,    Elias :    Histoire   du   Gouvernement    provisoire.      Paris,    1850, 
Lecou. 

Fair-minded  account  by  Ledru's  chief  of  cabinet.  Chief  fault  is 
tendency  to  see  plots  where  none  existed.  After  Stern  best  contem- 
porary account. 

Robin,  Charles :  Hisoire  de  la  'Revolution  f  ranqaise  de  1848.    Paris,  1850, 
Penaud  (BN). 

Good  republican  account,  chiefly  secondary,  detailed  on  February 
Days. 


293]  CRITICAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY  439 

Roinville:  Histoire  du  Banquet  reformiste  du  Douzieme  Arrondissement. 
Paris,  1848  (BN). 
Details  by  the  chairman  of  the  organizing  committee. 
St.  Amant :  Le  Drame  des  Tuilleries  apres  la  iRevolution  du  24  Fevrier. 
Paris,  1848,  Feret  (BN). 
Account  by  governor  of  the  Tuilleries. 
Sarrans,  Bernard:   Histoire  de  la  Revolution   de  Fevrier  1848.     Paris, 
1850-1,  Administration  des  Librairies  (BN). 

Moderate;   sees    faults  in   friends.     Some  primary   material  and 
much  secondary  material  including  some  pure  nonsense  (e.^.  cabals). 

Seurre,  Jules:  La  derniere  Republique.    Paris,  i860,  Garnier  (Wash.). 

Facts  on  the  department  of  the  'Saone  and  Loire. 
Stern,  Daniel   (Comtesse  d'Agoult)  :  'Histoire  de  la  'Revolution  de  1848. 
Paris,  1878,  Calmann-Levy. 

Best  contemporary  account ;  by  a  moderate.    Rather  philosophical 
but  not  too  much  so.    Detailed  through  Jime  Days.     High  opinion 
of  Lamartine ;  finds  Ledru  weak. 
Thomas,  Emile :  Histoire  des  Ateliers  Nationaux.     Oxford,   1918,  Qa- 
rendon  Press. 

Fully  documented  account  of  Workshops  by  their  head.    Unsatis- 
factory on  other  matters.     Heavy,  tiresome  style.     Impassioned  and 
envenomed. 
Tirel,  L. :  La  Republique  dans  les  Carosses  du  Roi.    Paris,  1850,  Garnier, 

Orleanist  collects  calumnies  and  pretends  to  document  them. 
Ulbach,  Louis :  Souvenirs  de  Fevrier  a  Mars  1848.    In  Revue  Bleue  25 : 
262-4. 

Weill,  Alexandre :  Six  Mois  de  Revolution.    Paris,  1868,  Dentu. 
Just  but  unreliable  moderate,  collaborator  of  Girardin. 

(F)    Secondary  General  Accounts 

Audebrand,    Philibert :    iNos    iRevolutionnaires.      Paris,    1886,    Frinzine 
(Wash.). 
Radical  tendency. 

Bouniols,  Gaston :  Histoire  de  la  IRevolution  de  1848.    Paris,  1918,  Dela- 
grave  (PL). 

Good  account  of  Assembly,  following  debates  closely.     Unpreju- 
diced and  placid. 

Charlety,  S. :  La  Monarchic  de  Juillet.    Paris,  1921,  Hachette  (Vol.  5  of 
Lavisse:  Histoire  Contemporaine). 
Good  account  of  February  Days. 


,  ,(3  CRITICAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [594 

Gradis.  Henri :  Histoire  de  la  Revolution  de  i849-     Paris,  1872,  Levy. 

Conservative  tries  to  be  fair  but  fails.    Good  analyses  of  speeches. 
Sometimes  unclear. 
Hamel,  L.  A. :  Histoire  illustree  de  la  Seconde  Republique.    Paris,  1891, 
Jouvet. 

Rather  fair-minded  but  poorly  informed  radical  sometimes  stum- 
bles on  the  truth. 
Hillebrand,  Karl:  Geschichte  Frankreichs.     Gotha,   1879,  Perthes. 

Dramatic  and  just  but  with  superficial  information. 
Jerrold,   Blanchard:    Life  of   Napoleon   IH.     London,    1882,    Longman, 
Green. 

Violent  Bonapartist  prejudice;  little  value. 
La   Gorce,   Pierre   de :    Histoire   de   la   Seconde   Republique   Frangaise. 
Paris,  1914,  Plon-Nourrit. 

Very   conservative  and   clerical,   moderately    fair   on   provisional 
government.     Gets   more  and  more  unjust,    reaching  a  climax  of 
prejudice  on  the  Roman  question  (natural  tendency  of  a  clerical). 
Lebey,  Andre :  Louis  Napoleon  Bonaparte  et  le  Ministere  Odilon  Barrot. 
Paris,  1912,  Comely  (PL). 

The   most   detailed  and   the  most   unprejudiced   account   of  this 
period.    Filled  with  extracts  from  speeches.    Very  long-winded  and 
dull. 
Lebey,  Andre :  Louis  Napoleon  et  la  Revolution  de  1848.     Paris,  1907-8, 
Juven  (Wash.). 

Neither  so  dull  nor  so  unprejudiced  nor  so  detailed  as  the  pre- 
ceding work.  Shows  clearly  liking  for  Louis  Napoleon  and  dislike 
for  Ledru.  Makes  some  bad  mistakes  {e.  g.,  credits  Ledru  with 
publishing  the  sixteenth  bulletin). 
Martin,  Henri :  Popular  History  of  France.  Boston,  1882,  Dana,  Estes, 
and  Lauriat. 

Volume    3   contains    clear,    popular,    superficial,    anti-Bonapartist 
account. 
Pierre,  Victor :  Histoire  de  la  Republique  de  1848.    Paris,  1878,  Plon. 

Most  violent  and  unjust  of  conservative  accounts.    Tells  the  truth, 
nothing  but  the  truth,  but  not  the  whole  truth. 
Renard,  Georges :  La  Republique  de  1848.    Paris,  1906,  RouflF.     (Volume 
9  of  Jaures  :  Histoire  Socialiste.) 

Excellent  account.  Unfortunately  quite  brief  except  on  social 
phases.  Philosophic  treatment.  Superdemocratic  and  socialist  lean- 
ings but  no  such  prejudice  or  distortion  as  in  the  conservative  ac- 
counts. 


^^2]  CRITICAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY  44 1 

Rittiez,  F. :  Histoire  du  Gouvernement  Provisoire  de  1848.    Paris,  18S6-7, 
Librairie  Internationale  (Wash.). 
Fair-minded,  commonplace  account. 
Seignobos,   Charles:    La    Revolution    de    1848.      Paris,    1921,    Hachette. 
(Vol.  6  of  Lavisse:  Histoire  Contemporaine.) 

Fills  a  much-needed  want   for  a  good,  impartial  history  of  the 
second  republic.     Selects  important  topics  rather  than  gives  a  flow- 
ing narrative.     Some  faults,  such  as  accusing  Ledru  too  freely  of 
plotting. 
Spuller,    Eugene :    Histoire    parlementaire    de    la    Seconde    Republique. 
Paris,  1891,  Mean  (PL). 
Brief,  commonplace,  radical  account. 
TchernofF,  L :  Associations  et  Societes  Secretes  sous  la  Deuxieme  Re- 
publique.    Paris,  1905,  Alcan. 
Weill,  Georges :  Histoire  du  Parti  Republicain  en  France  de  1814  a  1870. 
Paris,  1900,  Alcan. 
Two  standard  accounts  on  history  of  the  republican  party. 

(G)    Secondary  Accounts  on  Special  Subjects 

Antony,  Alfred :  La  Politique  Financiere  du  Gouvernement  Provisoire. 
Paris,  1909,  Rousseau. 
Standard  work  on  ministerial  expenses. 

Bertrand,  Louis :  Histoire  de  la  Democratic  et  du   Socialisme  en  Bel- 
gique.     Brussels,  1906-7,  Dechenne. 
Standard  work  on  democrats  of  and  in  Belgium. 

Caiman,  Alvin :  Delescluze,  Ledru-Rollin,  et  I'Echaufouree  de  Risquons- 
toue.     In  Revolution  de  1848,  16 :  44-50. 

Contains  two  important  letters  of  Delescluze. 

Clermont,   F.,  and  Bourgeois,  Emile:    Rome   et  Napoleon    III.     Paris, 
1907,  Colin.     (Clermont  wrote  part  dealing  with  1848-9.) 

Standard  work  on  the  diplomacy  of  the  Roman  expedition.  Good 
on  Assembly  debates  and  cabinet  troubles  in  France,  but  less  good 
on  internal  workings  of  the  Mountain. 

Cremieux,  Albert:  La  Revolution  de  Fevrier.     Paris,  1912,  Cornely. 
Standard  work  on  February  Days. 

Curtis,  E.  N. :   French  Assembly  of   1848  and  American  Constitutional 
Doctrines.     New  York,  1907,  Columbia  Press. 

Best  work  on  the  constitution.  Clear  account  of  the  composition 
of  the  Assembly. 


^2  CRITICAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [596 

Dreyfus,    C.    Ferdinand:    L' Assistance    sous    la    Seconde    Republique. 
Paris,  1907,  Comely. 
Standard  work  on  philanthropy  under  the  second  republic. 

Felice,  iRaoul  de:  La  Journee  du  13  Juin  a  Paris.    In  Revolution  de 

1848,  6 :  133-325. 
Only  good  account  of  June  13  and  of  the  Versailles  trial. 

Gaillard,  Leopold  de:  L'Expedition  de  Rome  en  1849.    Paris,  1861,  Le- 
coffre  (PL). 

Good  account  of  affairs  at  Rome. 
Genique,  Gaston:  L^Election  de  I'Assemblee  Legislative  en  1849.     Paris, 

Rieder,  1921. 
Gossez,  A.  M. :  Le  Departement  du  Nord  sous  la  Deuxieme  Republique. 
Lille,  1904,  Leleu.     (In  the  Sorbonne  Library.) 

Nephew   of   Bianchi  gives  some  new  material.     Clear  and   fair- 
minded  account  with  radical  tendencies. 

Haury,   P.:    Les    Commissaires    de   Ledru-Rollin    1848.     In   Ret'olution 
Frangaise  $7  •  438-475- 

Standard   account   concerning  the   commissioners,   although   con- 
taining some  errors. 
La  Place  de  Chauvac,  Gaston  de :  Crises  dans  les  Finances  Publiques  en 
1848.     Toulouse,  1916,  Marqueste. 
Standard  work  on  general  financial  policies. 

Lousteau,  Pierre :  Louis  Blanc  et  la  Commission  du  Luxembourg.    Paris, 
1908,  Bonvalet-Jouve. 
Standard  work  on  the  Luxembourg  Commission. 

Mauve,  E. :  Le  Bourbonnais  sous  la  Seconde  'Republique.    Moulins,  1909, 
Progres  Social  (BN). 

Standard  work  on  Allier  and  neighboring  departments. 

Monin,  Georges :  George  Sand  et  la  Republique  de  Fevrier  1848.     In 
Revolution  Frangaise  37:428-38:  185. 

Valuable  information  on  the  Bulletins  of  the  Republic. 

Muller,  Paul:  La  Revolution  de  1848  en  Alsace.     Paris,   1912,  Fisch- 
backer. 

Standard  work  on  departments  of  Lower  and  Upper  Rhine. 

Prod'homme,  J.  G. :  Le  Musique  et  les  Alusiciens  en  1848.     In  Revolu- 
tion de  1848,  10:471-493. 

Thayer,  William  Roscoe:  The  Dawn  of  Italian  Independence.    Boston, 
1893,  Houghton,  Mifflin. 

Very  good  account  of  affairs  at  Rome,  though  partial  to  Mazzini. 


2^7]  CRITICAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY  443 

Wassermann,  Suzanne:  Les  Clubs  de  Barbes  et  de  Blanqui  en  1848. 
Paris,  1913,  Cornely  (PL). 

Standard   work   on    these   clubs,    though    partial   to   Barbes   and 
Blanqui. 

(H)    Biographies 
Breton,  P. :  Memoires  du  Marquis  de  Boissy.    Paris,  1870,  Dentu. 
Pierrot,    Alfred :    Charles    Buvignier    a    Montmedy.     Montmedy,    1907, 

Pierrot  (BN). 
Proles,  Charles :  Charles  Delescluze.    Paris,  1893,  Chamuel. 
Des  Cognets,  Jean :  Vie  Interieure  de  Lamartine.    Paris,  1913,  Mercure 

de  France. 
Quentin-Bauchart,   Pierre:  Lamartine,   Homme  Politique.     Paris,  1903, 

Plon-Nourrit. 
Best  biography  as  to  political  career  of  Lamartine. 
Whitehouse,  R.  Remsen :  Life  of  Lamartine.     Boston,  1918,  Houghton, 

Mifflin. 

Better  on  literary  than  on  political  side.     Many  errors.     Appre- 
ciates character  of  Lamartine  and  his  evolution  in  1848  but  has  little 

grasp  of  general  events. 
Feugere,  Anatole :  Lamennais.     Paris,  1906,  Bloude. 
Pressense,  E. :  Leon  de  Maleville.     In  Revue  Bleue  192 :  549. 
Cherest,  Aime:  Vie  de  A.  T.  Marie.    Paris,  1872,  Durandet  Redone  (BN). 

Includes  many  letters  of  Marie. 
Morere,  P.:  Un  Revolutionnaire  ariegeois,  Victor  Pithes  in  Revolution 

de  1848  17:43-54. 

Mulberger,  Arthur:  Proudhon,  Leben  und  Werke.  Stuttgart,  1899, 
Frommann. 

(J)    Newspapers  Consulted  for  Entire  Period 

(The  names  in  ordinary  type  in  parentheses  following  the  newspapers 
indicate  the  editors;  those  in  italics,  the  patrons.) 

Orleanist:  Constitutionnel  (Veron,  Thiers)  (Wash.);  Journal  des 
Debats  (PL);  Siecle  (Barrot)   (Wash.);  Times  of  London  (PL). 

Moderate:  Atelier  (Buchez)  (PL);  National  (Cavaignac,  Marrast, 
etc.)  (Wash.). 

Radical:  People  Constituant  (Lamennais)  (PL);  Reforme  (Ledru, 
Flocon,  etc.)  (BN)  ;  Revolution  democratique  et  sociale  (Deles- 
cluze) (BN);  Nation  of  Brussels  (in  Bibliothcque  Royale,  Brus- 
sels). 


^^.  CRITICAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [598 

Socialist:  Commune  de  Paris  (Sobrier)  (PL);  Democratic  Pacifique 
(Considerant)  (BN)  ;  Peuple,  or  Representant  du  Peuple  (Proud- 
hon)  (PL);  Vraie  Republique,  or  Journal  de  la  Vraie  Republique 
(Barbes,  Sand,  etc.)   (PL). 

Ultra-revolutionary:  Ami  du  Peuple  (Raspail)  (PL);  Republique 
(Blanqui)  (Wash.). 

(K)    Newspapers  Mentioned  or  Partly  Read 
(Extracts  from  most  of  these  may  be  found  in  PL) 

Catholic:  Ere  Nouvelle  (Lacordairc)  ;  Univers  (Veillot). 

Legitimist :  Courier  de  la  Chambre ;  Esprit  National ;  France  Nouvelle 
(Dumas);  Gazette  de  France  (Genoude)  ;  Lampion;  Liberte  (Du- 
mas); Opinion  Publique;  Union. 

Bonapartist :  Dix  Decembre. 

Orleanist :  Assemblee  Constituante  (Giiisot)  ;  Assemblee  Nationale; 
Gazette  des  Tribunaux ;  Journal  de  Villes  et  Campagnes ;  Patrie 
(Girardin,  Delamarrc)  ;  Pays;  Spectateur  de  Londres  (Guisot). 

Moderate:  Avenir  National;  Bien  Public  (Pelletan,  Laniartiiie)  ;  Com- 
merce ;  Courier ;  Credit ;  Journal ;  Langue  du  Vipere,  or  Pot-aux- 
Roses. 

Radical:  Courier  Frangais  (Xavier  Durrieu)  ;  Ecole  Politique  des  Peu- 
ples;  Montagne;  Temps  (X.  Durrieu);  Travail  (Baune)  ;  Tribune 
du  Peuple. 

Socialist:  Organisation  du  Travail;  Populaire  (Cabet)  ;  Travail  af- 
franchi  (Vidal). 

L' Itra-revolutionary :  Aimable  Faubourgien  (Delvau)  ;  Bonnet  Rouge; 
Lanterne;  Pere  Duchene. 

Personal:  Evenement  (Hugo);  Presse  (Girardin). 

(L)    Departmental  Newspapers  Mentioned  or  Consulted 
(All  BN) 

Orleanist:  Representant  of  Chateauroux;  Echo  of  Moulins ;  Memorial 
of  Moulins ;  Union  of  Le  Mans ;  Courier  de  la  Limogne  of  Riom. 

Moderate:  Courier  of  Lyons;  Constitution  of  Moulins;  Journal  of 
Tours;  Constitutionnel  of  Chateauroux. 

Radical:  Journal  of  Chateauroux;  Droit  Commun  of  Bourges;  Re- 
publique de  1848  of  Bourges;  Journal  de  la  Somme;  Impartial  of 
Lille  (Delescluze)  ;  Messager  of  Lille  (Bianchi)  ;  Republicain  of 
Moulins;  Emancipation  of  Toulouse;  Courier  of  Le  Mans  (Reg- 
nault). 

Socialist :  Peuple  Souverain  of  Lyons. 


INDEX 


Abbatucci,  287 

Adam,  Edmond,  IS7 

Adam,  Juliette,  62,  392 

Adelsward,  363 

Affre,  20,  III,  212 

Agoult,  see  Stern 

Aguesseau,  see  Segur  d'Aguesseat^ 

Albert,  36-7,  41-2,  49,  52,  IZ,  7^7, 

127,  135,  151-9,  165-6,  177-8,  181, 

183,  186,  230,  246,  296 
Algeria,  18,  52,  81,  107-S,  127,  166, 

180,  234,  420 
Alphonse,  390,  406 
Alton-Shee,  35-6,  40,  245,  299 
Amnesty,  40,  238,  250,  293-4,  297, 

410 
Andryane,  64 
Antoine,  281 
Antonelli,  340,  354 
Arago,    Emmanuel,    93,    no,    281, 

331.   355,   357 

Arago,  Etienne,  19,  25,  36,  67,  90, 
140,  142,  147,  168,  178-9,  239, 
279,  281,  292,  z'^z,  Z77,  397-8, 
401-2 

Arago,  Francois,  19-20,  23,  27,  41- 
2,  48-9,  52-5,  71,  74,  78,  81-2,  85, 
97,  102,  106,  123,  138,  143,  149, 
160,  162,  165,  167,  170,  173-8, 
i8c2,  188.  192,  198-9,  202-S,  210, 
212,  227,  281,  316 

Army,  41,  52,  54,  81-2,  97,  1 15-6, 
127-8,  134.  136,  164-7,  178,  192, 
200-12,  248-50,  254,  265-7,  272, 
276-7,  281-2,  289-93,  298,  31 1-6, 
337-50,  358-9,  364,  372,  378,  382- 
90.  393.  415,  419-20,  423-6 

Arnaud  de  I'Ariege,  233,  281 

Arnaud   du  Var,   280 

Astaix,  280 

Audebrand,    57 

Audry  de  Puyravault,  281 

Austria,  62,  92,  256,  260,  289,  315- 
-27,  333-45,  349-51,  360 

Azerm,  281 

599] 


Babaud,  401 

Bac,  254,  2&»,  357,  399 

Baden,  see  Germany 

Bajard,  281 

Banquets,  24-8,  31-5,  2>^,   192,  239- 

40,  244,  255-60,  275-9,  295,  301-6, 

404,  425 
Baraguey  d'  Hilliers,  179,  285,  288 
Barbes,   15,   126-7,   137,   140,   146-8, 

151,   156,  168,   174,  181,   184,   186, 

214-5,  230,  246,  295-6 
Baroche,  269,  366,  396,  399 
Barret,  Ferdinand,  263 
Barrot,   Odilon,   16-8,  22-35,  38-44, 

58,  114,  125,  143,  179,  214-5,  219- 

21,    226,    228,    238,    262-70,    273, 

278-93,  299,  312-4,  324,  326,  330- 

68.  395,  41 1-2,  416,  419 
Barthelemy-St.  Hilaire,  247-9 
Bastide,  178,  183,  199,  327,  377-8 
Bauchart,   see  Quentin-Bauchart 
Baudin,  371 
Baume,  281 

Baune,  252,  280,  310,  325,  341,  419 
Bavoux,  270 
Baze,  272 

Beaumont-Vassy,  295 
Bedeau,  42-3,  52,  54,  128,  250,  346, 

363,  366 
Belgium,   93-103,    109,    214,    224-8, 

245,  320,  326-7,  333,  397-8 
Benoit,  280 
Beranger,  27 
Berard,  279 
Berenger,  405-6 
Berger,  199 
Bernard,    Martin,    140,    246,    252, 

254,  273,  277,  280,  292,  310,  384, 

391-3,  397-8,  401-2 
Eerryer,   15,  47,  179 
Bertholon,  280 

I'cthinont,  23,   52,  80,  84,   106,   178 
I'ianchi,  25 
Billault,  333 

Bixio,  52,  249,  269,  316,  321,  i2>2 
445 


446 


INDEX 


[600 


Bizoin,  see  Glais-Bizoin 

Blanc,  Charles,  42 

Blanc,  Louis,  15,  19.  25.  30,  33,  35, 

41-2.  49.  5-2-5,  58,  62,  73-82,  104- 

6,  120,  124-7,  132,  T35,  141,  150- 
9.  165-70.  177-8,  184-9,  192,  198- 
203,  214-S,  218,  221,  226,  230, 
246,  296,  416-8 

Blanqui,  15,  50.  ^7,  80,  125-8,  138- 
41,  146,  151-8,  181,  184,  214,  230, 
245,  271,  295-6,  403,  410,  417 

Blervacq,  93-4,   102 

Blind,  328 

Blum,  256,  322 

Boch,  388 

Bochard,  281 

Bonaparte.  Louis  Napoleon,  15, 
58,  66.  172,  194-8,  241,  243,  246- 

7.  251.  253,  255,  260-3,  2^,  271, 
289-93,  296,  300,  310,  314,  324-5, 
331,  344-5,  353,  395,  409,  4i8 

Bonaparte.  Napoleon,  see  Napo- 
leon I 

Bonaparte,  Pierre,  281 

Bon  jean,  268 

Bordeaux,  Duke  of,  196 

Bourzat,  281 

Bouvet,  Francisque,  281,  326 

Brard,  281 

Bravard-Toussaint,  280 

Breymand,  281 

Brice-Bar,  275 

Brissot,  417 

Brives,  281 

Bruckner,  281 

Bruys,  281 

Buchez.  44,  no,  168,  174.  179,  183- 
5.  196,  209 

Buffet,  287 

Bugeaud,  40,  179,  243,  2rj6-7,  290, 
299.  313.  353,  404 

Bulletins  of  the  Republic,  70,  89, 
142-6,  152,  162,  214,  216,  285 

Buvignier,  254.  281,  316-7,  320, 
329,  402,  408 

Cabet,  15,  80,  126-7,  299 

Cadoudal,  268 

Cales,  281 

Calon,  421 

Cambon,  240,  413-4 

■Canel,  281 

Canet,  2^^,  396 

•Cantagrel,  375 

Carlier,  66,  69,  118,  155,  260 


Carnot.  23,  41,  51-2.  55,  80,  106, 
116,   178 

Carrier,   117 

Carteret,  66,  69,  125,  145,  147,  149, 
151,  155,  158,  163,  177-8 

Carton,  219,  424 

Cassagnac,  see  Granier  de  Cas- 
sagnac 

Castille,  256 

Casy,  178,  206 

Caussidiere,  17,  25,  35-8,  43,  47, 
56,  66,  72,  83-5,  94-5,  102-5,  125, 
138-41,  146,  150-1,  158,  178,  182, 
188-9,  199,  201,  203,  214-S,  218, 
221,  226,  230,  296,  310-1,  418 

Cavaignac,  Eugene,  55,  81-2,  178, 
199-212,  217-8,  22(>,  238,  241, 
243,  246-57,  261,  281,  296,  299- 
300,  308.  316-7,  320-4,  331,  334- 
5,   349,  357,  412,  420 

Cavaignac,  Godefroy,  19,  76,  81, 
212 

Cavaignac,  Jacques,  82,  420 

Cavaignac,  Jean-Baptiste,  82 

Cavaignac,  Mme,  81 

Cavour,  92 

Challemel-Lacour,  258 

Chambord,  Count  of,  see  Bor- 
deaux, Duke  of 

Champy,  281 

Changarnier,  128,  156,  217,  243, 
261,  264-6,  272,  277,  281-2,  289- 
92,  299,  312-3,  347-50,  377-9, 
382.   388,   394 

Charity,  20,  30,  71,  379 

Charles  Albert,  316,  320-1 

Charles  X,  2>2,  47 

Charras,  292 

Chateaubriand,  27 

Chauffeur,  281 

Chauvel.    see   Trouve-iChauvel 

Chauvelot,  256 

Chavoix,  281-2,  311 

Chenu.  2)7 

Chevalier,  240 

Cholat,  281 

Clement,  281 

Clubs.  74.  85,  125.  137-8,  151,  157, 
162,  170,  181,  215,  246,  259-60, 
270-3,  278-9.  285-7.  297,  355, 
see  also  Club  des  Gubs,  Secret 
Societies,  Solidarite  Republic- 
aine 

Club  des  Clubs,  90.  137-8,  162-5, 
182,  215,  224,  226,  245 


6oi] 


INDEX 


447 


Commissaire,  362-5,  371,  384,  388 
•Consider ant,   244-51,   252,  281,   288- 
93,    299,    310-1,    358,    363,    365, 
371,  375-6,   379,  382;   388,   391-5, 

iConstitution,    15,    228,    232-6,    258, 

260,  265-71,  274,  290-1,  297,  331, 
344.  356-73,  378-84,  394-S,  403-S 

Coralli,  368 

Cormenin,  83,   107 

Corne,  230 

Courtais,  155-6,  182-3,  188,  296, 
380 

Cremieux,  25,  41-5,  48-55,  74,  78- 
82,  114,  119,  124,  128,  135,  158, 
173,    178,    189-90,    196,    233,    243, 

261,  269,  281,  284,  290,  307,  350, 
362,  368,  370,  396,  402,  416-7, 
422-3 

Creton,  224-5^  241,  320,  424-5 
Curnier,  281 

Dain,  267,  281 
Damesne,  207 
Danton,    35-6,    45,    57-8,    66,    197, 

250,  264,  417 
Danubian     Provinces,     see     Rou- 

mania 
Darasz,  409 
Dargaud,  213 
Darimon,  297,  2(>2) 
Daru,  366 
David,  Louis,  105 
David  d' Angers,  27,  22,6,  251,  281, 

400,  418 
Degouve-Denunques,    99 
Delamarre,  89-90,  284-5 
Delbetz,  281 
Delbrel,  281 
Delescluze,    25,    94-103,    109,    in, 

245,  252-3,   259,  296-7,  355,  402, 

408,  418,  425 
Deludre,  281-2 
Delvau.  66-7,  90,  142,  157 
Demontry,   2S1 
'Demortreux,   281 
Den  joy,  279,  286-9 
'Deschamps,    109,   iii,   167 
Detours,  281 
Deville,    2=;2,    254,    268,    281,    310, 

382,^  388-91 
Domes,  25,   174-7 
Doutre,  281 
Drouyn    de    Lhuys,    324-43,    350, 

353 


Dubarry,  281 

Du  Camp,  123 

Duchatel,  23-4,   169 

Duclerc,   86-9,    149,    178,   225,  2^7. 

282-3 
Ducluzeau,  281 

Ducos,  ^z,  90,  131,  138,  164,  283 
Ducoux,  202,  238,  281,  338 
Dudont,  419 
Dudouy,  281 
Duels,  23,  245,  288 
Dufaure,    22,    24,    29,    195,    236-8, 

243-4,    248,    259,    281,    323,    366, 

395 
Dupin,  Sr,  44,  268-9,  274,  308,  363, 

368,  370,  408 
Dupin,  384,  391 

Dupont  de  Bussac,  236,  269,  335 
Dupont  de  I'Eure,  18,  23,  41-2,  47- 

55,   77,  82,  89,   124,   143,   168-79, 

202,  250 
Dupoty,   182 

Duprat,  Pascal,  19,  368,  370,  408 
Duprez,  257 
Durand-Savoyat,  281 
Durrieu,   Paulin,  281 
Durrieu,   Xavier,   140,  281 
Duvergier   de   Hauranne,   29,   278, 

334. 
Duvivier,   129 

Education,  30,  52,  69,  116,  134, 
150,  178,  254,  298,  408,  414 

England,  18,  20,  28,  lOi,  103,  222, 
224,  230,  240,  275,  296,  325,  328, 
341,  2197 <  409-10,  414,  426 

Espagne,  281 

Falloux,  15,  179,  193,  250,  281,  290, 
292,  299,  325,  344,  353-4,  408 

Fargin-Fayolle,    281 

Faucher,  131,  143,  222,  224,  269, 
272-3,  277,  282,  285-9,  311,  349 

Favre,  Jules,  15,  42-3,  48,  55,  57. 
64-5,  85,  iio-i,  116,  142,  145,  147, 
149,  151,  156-8,  173.  177-8,  189, 
196,  210,  227,  238-9,  248,  269, 
280-1,  323-4.  334,  337,  342,  346, 
349,  361,  369,  402,  421-3 

Fawticr,    281 

Fayolle,   sec  Fargin-Fayolle 

Finances,  19,  22,  52,  55,  61-3,  78, 
86-90,  105,  118,  122,  134,  143, 
162-3,  178,  193',  ^95,  224-8,  234- 
Ai,  254,  257-8,  281-4,  297-8,  302, 
413-5,  424-5 


448 


INDEX 


[602 


Fine  Arts,  67-8.  71-2,  418 

First  Republic.  28,  30,  35-7,  45-6, 
5S-9.  74-5,  91,  105,  117,  123,  136, 
197,  216,  228,  233,  239-40,  250, 
264,  413-5 

Flocon,  19.  23,  25,  28,  35-42,  49-55, 
64.  73,  76,  81,  84,  92,  109,  147, 
151-4,  158,  165-8,  172,  175,  177, 
180.  199,  201,  235-6,  239,  251, 
273,  279-83,  320,  342,  346,  416 

Flotte,  67,  140- 1 

Forel.  Carlos,  281 

Forest.  289.  313-4.  346-7 

Forestier,  355,  3S7,  394,  402,  407 

Fosse.  93-4 

Fould,  89.  284 

Foulon.  123 

Fourier,  22.  75,  375 

Franklin,  223 

Frapolli,  328,  338 

French  Revolution,  see  First  Re^ 
public 

Freslon.  237 

Freycinet,  95-6 

Gagern,  92 

Gaily,  252 

Gambetta.  29,  258,  410,  417 

Gambon,  25,  2S1,  310,  384 

Garibaldi,   341,   352,  354 

Garnier,   Pages,   Sr,   17,  78 

Garnier-Pages,  Jr,  23-5,  41-2,  48- 
55,  60,  78-90,  95,  106,  113,  1 18-9, 
124,  128,  143,  161.  172-8,  183, 
188,  190,  192,  194,  198-201,  204- 
5,  208-12,  241,  247,  249,  251,  281, 
419,   424 

Gay,  16 

Genoude.  44 

Gent,  281,  S77 

Germany,  92-3,  loi,  103,  137,  256, 
298,  309,  315-20,  333,  341,  350-1, 
357,. 369,  373,  426 

Gervais  de  Caen,  260 

Girardin,  35,  150,  292,  310,  356, 
358,  363,  405 

Glais-Bizoin,  199,  235,  273,  281 

Gloxin,  281 

Goudchaux,  41,  52,  62,  74,  80,  86, 
89,  139,  225,  283-4,  343,  357 

Gran  din,  278,  366 

Grandmesnil,   139 

Granier  de  Cassagnac,  29 

Great  Britain,  see  England 

Greppo,  244,  281,  298 


Grevy,  Jules,  235,  344,  346 
Guinard,    19,   36,  281,   380-91,  394, 

399,  402,  407 
Guiter,  281 
Guizot,    19,   22-4,   33-4,   37-40,    108, 

169,   179,  267,  278,  293,  321,  331, 

334,  367 

Hauranne,      see      Duvergier      de 

Hauranne 
Hebert,  31-2 

Herault  de  Sechelles,  413 
Herve,  246 
Herwegh.  90 
Higonnet,   192 

Hilliers,  see  Baraguey  d'Hilliers 
Hingray,  281 
Hodde,  see  La  Hodde 
Huber,  137,  139,  181.  184,  186 
Hugo,  15,  211.  250,  267,  271 
Hungary,  298,  350 

Impeachment,    35,    39.    271-2,    289, 

349,    358-71,    377,   382,    395,   403, 

416 
Initiative    and     Referendum,     see 

Referendum 
Internationalism,  91,  275,  315,  320, 

409,  414 
Ireland,  20,   103,   137 
Isambert,   107 
Italy,  27,  91-3,  loi,  103,  183,  224-5, 

256,    258,    260.    288-9,    298,    311, 

31S-71,    377,   382,    395.    397,   403, 

409,  411,  416,  425-6 

Jaeger,  375 

Jandeau,  281 

Jean-Reynaud,  see  RejTiaud 

Jeanron,  68,   147 

Joigneaux,  281,  301-3 

Tolv,  Sr,  2^9,  281,  288,  293 

Jol'y,  Jr,  281 

Judiciary.  16,  52,  82,  1 12,  1 1 5-6, 
134,  158-9,  178,  189,  216,  222-4, 
230,  254,  268-9,  274.  284,  295-8, 
306-7,   399-408,  414-5 

Judith.  71.  374 

Keratry,   31 1-4 
Kestner,  281 
Koenig,  281 
Kossuth,  320.  409 

Labrousse,  281 


6o3] 


INDEX 


449 


Laclaudure,  ^^,  368 

Lacratelle,  2S> 

Lacrosse,  311,  365,  ^ 

Laffitte,  87 

Laflize,  281 

Lagarde,  281 

Lagrange,  250,  281,  291,  395 

La  Hodde,  2,7 

Laissac,  267 

Lakanal,  414 

Lamartine.  15,  20,  23-30,  35,  41- 
55,  61,  66,  71-4,  79-81,  90-3,  102- 
6,  no,  118,  121 -8,  13S-9,  143, 
ISO,  155-65,  169-79,  183,  187-216, 
233,  238,  243,  247-8,  261,  273, 
280,  31S-9,  323-7,  332,  334,  349, 
411,  416-7,  422-4 

Lamaziere,  Daniel,  406 

Lamber,  62,  392 

Lamennais,  15,  27,  41,  165,  179, 
235,  244,  250-6,  280-1,  2991,  310, 
341,  .426 

Lamoriciere,  308,  316,  339,  342 

Landrin,  147-51,  158-9,  I73v  i79- 
82,  189,  199,  202,  227,  236,  238, 
273,  280-1,  421-3 

Larabit,  165,  2^2 

La  Rochejaquelin,  44,  46,  2^7 

Lasteyras,  281 

Latrade,  202,  205,  209,  370 

Laugier,    138,   162-3 

Laulerie,  310 

Laurent  de  I'Ardeche,  244,  2S1 

Laussat,  288 

Laussedat,  281 

Lebarillier,  281 

Leblanc,  235 

Lecointe,  142 

Ledru,  Charles,  16 

Ledru  Family,  16,  20 

Ledru-Rollin,  Henriette,  20-1,  70, 
172,  398.  400 

Ledru-iRolIin,  Opinions  on,  28-9, 
22,  35-7.  45.  57-60,  65,  67,  70,  72, 
117,  136,  139-42,  197,  210,  220, 
250,  256-9,  264,  310-1,  345,  348, 
411-8 

Le franc,  Pierre,  281 

Lefrangois,  281 

Leroux,  Berthe,  400 

Leroux,  Pierre,  15,  75,  141,  158, 
244,  250,  276,  278,  281,  299,  310, 
2(^,  396 

Lesseps,  342-4,  351-3,  357,  360-1,  z^ 

Liberty  Trees,  72,  136 


Liechtenberger,  232 

Lockroy,  68 

Lombardy,  see  Italy 

Longepied,    138,    162-3,    182 

Louis    Philippe,    17-8,    22-6,    31-4, 

38-44,  56,  62,  64,  70,  94,  108,  120, 

172,    194,    236,    238,    262-2,    331, 

360,  415 
'Luxembourg      Commassion,      135, 

160,  214,  377 

Machiavelli,  413 

Madet,  281 

Madier  de  Montjau,  Sr,  402,  406-7 

Madier  de  Montjau,  Jr,  246,  417 

Maichain,  281 

Maigne,  385 

Maleville,  49,  267,  269,  271,  278, 
286,  374,  419 

Marie,  Aimable,  15,  23,  41-4,  48- 
55.  61,  72,  77-^,  84-5,  106,  124, 
128,  152,  154,  165,  172-8,  183, 
188,  191 -3,  198-206,  210-2,  222, 
236,  248,  281,  299,  423-4 

Marie,  Alphonse,  281 

Marrast,  Armand,  23,  34,  38,  41-2, 
52-5,  77-84,  93.  106,  123,  128, 
155-6,  161,  165,  170-3,  177-9, 
183,  187,  189,  198-9,  217-21,  224- 
5,  237,  271-2,  279,  281,  284,  289- 
94,  300,  312-3,  317,  346-7,  350, 
416,  424-5 

Martin  de  Strasbourg,  42,  174 

Marx,  410,  415 

Mathe,  281,  304-6 

Mathieu,  75,  179,  221,  233,  235,, 
244-7,  253-4,  276,  281 

Mathis,  400 

Mazzini,  92,  320,  227,  332,  341, 
344,  346,  351-2,  375,  409-10 

Medal.  281 

Meetings,  see  Public  Meetings 

Melun,  20,  30-1,  69 

Menand,  281 

Merlin  de  Douai,  268 

Michel  de  Bourges,  310,  371-3, 
27^,  384,  402,  406-8 

Michelet,  30 

Michot-Boutet,  281,  291 

Mickicwicz,  30 

Mie,  Auguste,  281 

Mill,  60 

Millard,  281 

Mirabeau,  66,  250,  417 

Mole,  39-40,  79,  250,  276,  333 


45° 

Montalembert,   15,  179,  323-4 
Morhery,  281 
Morny,  221 
Mule,  281 

Nadaud.  Martin,  251,  362,  371 

Naples,  see  Italy 

Napoleon  I,  26,  35,  47,  262,  324 

Napoleon  II,  47 

Napoleon  III,  see  Bonaparte, 
Louis   Napoleon 

National  Guard,  34,  36,  39,  62,  70, 
97,  loi,  104,  113,  115,  120-9, 
135,  141,  155-60,  167-8,  182-91, 
195,  202-7,  211,  217,  249-50,  265- 
7,  281-2,  289,  305-7,  355,  358, 
364,  ZI2,  377-89.  407,  423-4 

National  Workshops,  128,  160,  165, 
192-4,  201,  214,  225-6,  292,  296 

Negrier,  97,   128 

Negro  Slavery,  19,  55 

Nemours,  Duke  of,  44 

Newspapers,  see  Press 

Normanby,  103,  118,  122,  128,  220, 
253 

O'Connell,  20 
Ollivier,  Demosthene,  281 
Ollivier,  Emile,  36,  241,  410 
Orleans,  Duchess  of,  40-1,  44 
Orleans    Family,    see   Louis    Phil- 
ippe ;  Nemours,  Duke  of ;  Paris, 
Count  of 
Oudinot,    44,    339-54,    359-6o,    z^T, 
404 

Pagnerre,    23,    51-2,    60,    80,    106, 

177-8,  241 
Paris,  Archbishop  of,  see  Aflfre 
Paris,  Count  of,  39-41,  44,  196 
Pascal  d'Aix,  281 
Pegot-Ogier,  281 
Pelletier,  281 
Penieres,  281 
Perdiguier.  281 
Perrier,  377-8 
Persigny,  58,  271 
Petetin,   142 
Petion,  250 
Petit,  zi^,  405,  407 
Peugnot,  391 

Philanthropy,  see  Charity 
Picard,  281 
Pietri,   281 
Pilhes,  390 


INDEX 


[604 


Pin,  281 

Pius  VI,  329 

Pius  VII,  329 

Pius  IX,  321-32,  337-40,  344,  351- 

4.  360-1,  411,  425 
Point.  286 
Poland,    27,    103,    137,    181-4,    298, 

315.  320 
Police,    zz,    Z7,    56,    66,   83-5,    105, 

118,  138-9,  154-5,  178-9.  200,  258- 

60,   277-9,   285-7,   377-S,   397-401, 

409 
Pope,    see    Pius    VI,    Pius    VII, 

Pius  IX 
Portalis,  138,  147-51,  158,  179,  189, 

190,  22"/,  236,  239 
Pouillet,  382-4,  387-8,  394 
Press,   19-20,  61,   150,  191-2,  221-4, 

245-6,    251-3,    270,    296-7,    355-8, 

363-4.   371,   2,77.   379,   399,  402-3, 

407 
Proudhon,   15,  74,  215,  244-7,  259, 

281,  299.  415 
Prussia,  see  Germany 
Public  Meetings,  24,   191,  255,  see 

also  Right  of  Public  Meeting 
Pujol,  201 
Puyravault,  see  Audry  de  Puyra- 

vault 
Pyat,    Felix,    48-9,    222,    22,6,    245, 

253-4,  276,  281,  :^&,  299,  301,  310^ 

341,  360-1,  384,  397,  426 

Quentin-Bauchart,  -zip,  214-5,  219^ 

21,  224-30,  290,  311,  424 
Quinet,  30,  36-7,  281,  323 

Rachel,  71-2 

Radetzky,  315-6,  323 

Raspail,  Eugene,  268,  281,  286 

Raspail     Frangois,      126-7,     137-9, 

181,    184-6,   230,  244-7,  259,  261, 

268,  296 
Raynal,  281,  277 
Recurt,   19,  25,  41,  83,   177-8,  201, 

281 
Referendum,  409,  4I4 
Regnault,  17,  43.  65-7,  74,  99,  in, 

121,  138.  142-8,  199,  421 
Remusat,  29,  418 
Renaud,  281 
Renou,  281 
Reverchon,  281 
Rev,  Colonel,  27 
Rev,  General,  281 


6o5] 


INDEX 


451 


Rey,  Martin,  281 

Reynaud,   199,  281 

Riancourt,  iii 

Ribeyrolles,  252 

Richard,  281 

Right    of    Public    Meeting,    31-2, 

40,    254,    259-60,    270,    274,    278, 

286-7 
Right    to    Work,    105-6,    120,    134, 

229,   233^5,   239,  254,   297-8,   3,02 
Risquons-tout  Affair,  see  Belgium 
.Robert  de  Yonne,  267 
Robespierre,  28,  30,   105,  216,  233, 

264,  413-4,  417 
Robin,  49 
Rochejaquelin,    see    La    Rocheja- 

quelin 
RoUand,  385 
Rome,  see  Italy 
Ron j  at,  281 
Rossi,  321-2,  369 
Rouher,  407 

Roumania,  see  Rumania 
Rousseau,  418 
Royer,  406 
Ruge,  328,  272,  409 
Rumania,  256,  320,  322 
Rusconi,  367 
Russia,  316-8,  322,  326-7,  333,  350- 

I,  369 

St.  Ferreol,  385 

St.  Gaudens,  281 

St.     Hilaire,     see    Barthelemy-St. 

Hilaire 
St.  Romme,  290 
St.  Simon,  22,  76 
Sand,  George,  65,  70-2,  141-S,  159, 

246 
Sarrans.  331,  350 
Sarcey.  259 
Sardinia,  see  Italy 
Sarrut,  Germain,  281,  408 
Sauzet.  44 
Savoy,  see  Italy 
Savoye,  93,  328 
Schlosser,  281 

Schmitz,  355,  364,  377,  402 
Schoelcher,  19,  281,  339,  341,  425-6 
Schuetz,   328 
Schools,  30,  33,  95-103,  120-1,  258- 

60,  277-8._  364,  377 
Secret  Societies,  34,  36,  38,  43,  68, 

153.    252,    272-4,    28s,    310,    376, 

382,  387,  404,  408 


Segur  d'Aguesseau,  363,  366 
Senard,  64,    109,    176,    199,  209-14, 

224,  236-8,  270-1,  281,  324,  343, 

361,  369 
Signard,  281,  392 
Slavery,  see  Negro  Slavery 
Sobrier,    56,   67,    80,    126-7,    138-9, 

165,  226 
Socialism,    18,   22-3,  65,   73-6,    105, 

120,   137,   143,   165,  168-70,  228-9, 

233-4,    239-40,    244-6,    254,    259, 

275-7,   289,   298,   302,   3101.   375, 

409-10,  415 
Solidarite  Republicaine,  252-4,  272- 

5,  402,  408 
Spain,  232,  256,  337 
Stern,  Daniel,  59,  219-20 
Struck,  no 
Struve,  328 
Subervie,  54,  8O-1,  420 
Suchet,  387,  396,  407 
Switzerland,  27,  91,  397 

Tamisier,  399 

Target,  281 

Taschereau,  140-1,  245,  420-1 

Terrier,  2S1 

Teste,  63 

Testelin,  25 

Thiers,  17,  19,  23-4,  29-30,  33,  35. 
40,  162,  179,  233,  243,  250,  271, 
281,  290,  299,  324,  334-5,  364-70. 
411,  417-8 

Thomas,    Clement,    195,    202,    292, 

333,  349 
Thomas,  Emile,  192 
Thore,  36 
Thourel,  402,  405 
Thouret,  Antony,  241,  290 
Tibaldi,   409-10 
Tocqueville,    117,    23I3,    354,    357, 

359,  366 
ToussaintnBravard,    see    Bravard- 

Toussaint 
Tracy,  3^7,  349.  356 
Transnonain  Affair,  17.  268 
Trelat,    168,    174,    177-8,    I93,   201, 

281 
Trouve-Cliauvel,     17,     166,     188-9, 

241 
Turkey,  327 
Tuscany,  see  Italy 
Tw^o  Sicilies,  see  Italy 

Ulbach,  70 


452 


INDEX 


[606 


United  States,  222-4,  275,  319,  414 
Universities,  see  Schools 

Vaillant,  354 
Venetia.  see  Italy 
Ventura,  351 
Versigny,  401 
Vezin,  272 
Vignerte,   281 
Vilain,  138 
Viox,  281 


Vivien,  236 


Washington,  319 
Weill,  122 
Westercamp,  281 
Wolowski,  183 

Workshops,    see    National    Work- 
shops 

Yves,  281 


STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

ECONOMICS  AND 

PUBLIC  LAW 


EDITED  BY 

THE  FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 

OF  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


VOLUME  ONE  HUNDRED  AND  THREE 


COLUMBIA    UNIVERSITY 

LONGMANS,  GREEN  &  CO.,  AGENTS 

London:  P.  S.  King  &  Son,  Ltd. 

1922 


CONTENTS 


The  Relation  of  British  Policy  to  the  Declaration  of 
THE  Monroe  Doctrine — Leojiard  Axel  Lawson,  Ph.D.        i 

Ledru-Rollin  and  the  Second  French  Republic — Alvin 
R.  Caiman,  Ph.D 155 


! 


;> 


in  tte  Citg  iCif  Sjew  ^0t:U 

The  Univ^ersity  includes  tlie  following  : 

Columbia  College,  founded  in  17o4,  and  B&rnard  College,  founded  in 
1889,  otlering  to  men  and  women,  respectively,  programs  of  study  which  may 
be  begun  either  in  September  or  February  and  which  lead  normally  in  from  three 
to  four  years  to  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Arts.  The  program  of  study  in  Co- 
lumbia College  makes  it  possible  for  a  well  qualified  student  to  satisfy  the  require- 
ments for  both  the  bachelor's  degree  and  a  professional  degree  in  law,  medicine, 
technology  or  education  in  five  to  seven  years  according  to  the  course. 

The  Faculties  of  Political  Science,  PhiiIosoph3'  and  Pure  Science,  offerii>g 
advanced  progi'ams  of  study  and  investigation  leading  to  the  degrees  of  Master  of 
xlrts  and  Doctor  of  Philosophy. 

The  Professional  Schools  of 
Law,  established  in  1858,  ofiering  courses  of  three  years  leading  to  the  degree  of 

Bachelor  of  Laws  and  of  one  year  leading  to  the  degree  of  Sf  aster  of  Laws. 
Medicine.     The  College  of  Physicians  and  Surgeons,  established  in  1807,  offering 
two-year  courses   leading   to  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Science  and  four- 
year  courses  leading  to  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Medicine. 
Mines,  founded  in  l.'^Go,  ofiering  courses  of  tliree  years  leading  to  the  degrees 

of  Engineer  of  Mines  and  of  Metallurgical  Engineer. 
Chemistry  and  Engineering,  set  apart  from  School  of  Mines  in  1896,  offerin" 
three-year  courses  leading  to  degrees  in  Civil,  Electrical,  Mechanical  and 
Chemical  Engineering. 
Teachers  College,  founded  in  1888,  offering  in  its  School  of  Education  courses 
in  the  history  and  philosophy  of  education  and  the  theory  and   practice  of 
teaching,  leading  to  appropriate  diplomas  and  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of 
Science  in  Education  ;  and  in  its  School  of  Practical  Arts  founded  in  1912, 
courses  in  household  and  industrial  arts,  fine  arts,  music,  and  physical  train- 
ing leading  to  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Science  in  Practical  Arts      All  the 
courses  in  Teachers  College  are  open  to  men  and  women.     These  faculties 
offer  courses  leading  to  the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  and  Master  of  Science. 
Architecture,  offering  a  program  of  indeterminate  length  leading  to  the  degree 

of  Bachelor  of  Arcliitecture  and  Master  of  Science. 
Journalism,  I'ounded  in  1912,  offering  a  two-year  course  leading  to  the  degree 
of  Bachelor  of  Literature  in  Journalism.     The  regular  requirement  for  ad- 
mission to  this  course  is  two  years  of  college  work. 
Business,  founded  in  1916,  offering  two  and  three-year  courses  in  business  train- 
ing leading  to  appropi'iate  degrees. 
Dentistry,  founded  in  1917,  offering   four-year  courses  leading  to  appropriate 

degrees. 
Pharmacy.     The  New  York  College  of  Pharmacy,  founded  in  18^1,  ofiering 
courses  of  two,  three  and  four  years  leading  to  appropriate  certificates  and 
degrees. 
In  the  Summer  Session  the  University  offers  courses  giving  both  general  and 
professional  training  which  may  be  taken  either  with  or  without  regard  to  an 
academic  degree  or  diploma. 

Through  its  system  of  University  Extension  the  Univprsily  oilers  many  courses 
of  study  to  persons  unable  otiierwise  to  receive  academic  training. 

Home  Study  courses  carrying  no  academic  credit  are  offered  to  persons  imable 
to  attend  courses  conducted  at  the  University. 

The  Institute  of  Arts  and  Sciences  firovides  lectures,  concerts,  readings  and 
recitals — approximately  two  liundred  and  fifty  in  niunber — in  a  single  season. 

The  price  of  the  University  Catalogue  is  twenty-five  cents  postitaid.  Detailed 
information  regarding  the  work  in  any  department  will  be  furnished  without 
charge  upon  application  to  tlie  Secretary  of  Columbia  Universiiy,  Kew  York, 
N.  Y. 


Columbia  ^nm^tjslh^ 

FACULTY    OF    POLITICAL    SCIENCE 

Nicholas  Murray  Butler,  LL.D.,  President.  Munroe  Smith,  LL.D.,  Piofessoi 
of  Roman  Law.  E.  R.  A.  Seligman,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Political  Economy.  J.  B. 
Moore,  LL.D.,  Piolessor  of  International  Law.  W.  A.  Dunning,  LL.D.,  Professor  of 
History.  F.  H.  Giddings,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Sociology.  J.  B.  Clark,  LL.D.,  Professor 
of  Political  Economy.  H.  R.  Seager,  Ph.D.,  professor  of  Political  Economy.  H.  L. 
Moore,  Ph.  D.,  Professor  of  Political  Economy.  F,  J.  E.  Woodbridge,  LL.D.,  Dean. 
W.  R.  Shepherd,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  History.  J.  T.  Shotwell,  Ph.D.,  Professor  oi 
History.  V.  G.  Simkhovitch,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Economic  History.  H.  Johnson, 
A.  yi..  Professor  of  History.  S.  McC.  Lindsay,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Social  Legislation. 
C."  J.  H.  Hayes,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  History.  A.  A.  Tenney,  Ph.D.,  Assistant  Pro- 
fessor of  Sociology.  R.  L.  Schuyler,  Ph.D.,  Associate  Professor  of  History.  R.  E. 
Chaddock,  Ph.D.,  Associate  Professor  of  Statistics.  D.  S.  Muzzey,  Ph.D.,  Professor 
of  Histor}''.  T.  R.  Powell,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Constitutional  Law.  H.  L.  McBain, 
Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Municipal  Science.  B-  B.  Kendrick,  Ph.D.,  Associate  Professor  of 
History.  C-  D.  Hazen,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  History.  W.  F.  Ogburn,  Ph.D.,  Professor 
of  Sociology.  Dixon  R.  Fox,  Ph.D.,  Associate  Professor  of  History.  W.  W.  Rock- 
well Ph.D.,  Associate  Professor  of  Church  Histoiy  in  Union  Theological  Seminary. 
F.  J.  Foakes  Jackson,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  Christian  Institutions  in  Union  Theological 
Seminary.  Roswell  C.  McCrea,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Economics.  Henry  Parker 
Willis  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Banking.  Lindsay  Rogers,  Ph.D.,  Associate  Professor  of 
Government.     Austin  P.  Evans,  Ph.D.,  Assistant  Professor  of  History. 


SCHEME  OF  INSTRUCTION 

Courses  are  offered  under  the  following  departments:  (i)  History,  (2)  Public  Law 
and  Comparative  Jurisprudence,  (3)  Economics,  (4)  Social  Science. 

The  Faculty  does  not  aim  to  offer  courses  that  cover  comprehensively  all  of  the  sub- 
jects  that  are  included  within  the  fields  of  its  interests. 

GENERAL  COURSES 

General  courses  involve  on  the  part  of  the  student  work  outside  of  the  classroom  ; 
but  no  such  course  involves  extensive  investigation  to  be  presented  in  essay  or  other  form. 

History,  twenty-one  general  courses.  Public  Law  and  Comparative  Jurisprudence^ 
twelve  general  courses.  Economics,  thirteen  general  courses.  Social  Science,  seven 
general  courses. 

RESEARCH  COURSES 

Research  courses  vary  widely  in  method  and  content;  but  every  such  course  involves 
on  the  part  of  the  student  extensive  work  outside  the  classroom. 

History,  thirteen  research  courses.  Public  Law  and  Comparative  Jurisprudence, 
eight  research  courses.  Economics,  ten  research  courses.  Social  Science,  ten  research 
courses. 


The  degrees  of  A.M.  and  Ph.D.  are  given  to  students  who  fulfill  the  requirements  pre- 
scribed. (For  particulars,  see  Columbia  University  Bulletins  of  Information,  Faculty  of 
Political  Science.)  Any  person  not  a  candidate  for  a  degree  may  attend  any  of  the  courses 
at  anytime  by  payment  of  a  proportional  fee.  Ten  or  more  Cutting  fellowships  of  1 1000 
each  or  more,  four  University  fellowships  of  $650  each,  two  or  three  Gilder  fellow- 
Bhips  of  I650— |8oo  each,  the  Schiff  fellowship  of  |6oo,  the  Curtis  fellowship  of  $600, 
the  Garth  fellowship  of  $650  and  a  number  of  University  scholarships  of  ^150  each  are 
awarded  to  applicants  who  give  evidence  of  special  fitness  to  pursue  advanced  studies. 
Several  prizes  of  from  ^50  to  $250  are  awarded.  The  library  contains  over  700,000 
volumes  and  students  have  access  to  other  great  collections  in  the  city. 


in  Historical  and  Political  Science 


THIETY-FOURTH  SERIES.— 1916.— ?4.00 
(Complete  in  four  numbers) 
I.  The  Boycott  in  American  Trade  Unions.     By  Leo  Wolman.     $1 .00:  cloth, 
$1.25. 
IT.  The  Postal  Power  of  Congress.    By  Lixdsay  Rogers.   ^1.00;  cloth,  $1.25. 

III.  The  Control  of  Strikes  in  American  Trade  Unions.    By  G.  M.  Janes.     75 

cents;  cloth,  $1.00. 

IV.  State  Administration  in  Maryland.     By  Johx  L.  Donaldson.     ^1.00; 

cloth,  $1.25. 

THIRTY-FIFTH  SERIES.— 1917. -$4.00 
(Complete  in  three  numbers) 

I.  The  Virginia  Committee  System  and  the  American  Revolution.     By  J. 

M.  Leake.     $1.00;  cloth,  $1.25. 
II.  The  Organizability  of  Labor.     By  W.  O.  Weyporth.     $1.50. 

III.  Party  Organization  and  Machinery  in  Michigan  since  1890.     By  A.  C. 

MiLLSPAUGH.     $1.00;  cloth,  $1.25. 

THIRTY-SIXTH  SERIES,— 1918.— 14. 00 

(Complete  in  four  numbers) 

I.  The  Standard  of  Living  in  Japan.    By  K.  Morimoto.    $1.25;  cloth,  $1.50. 

II.  Sumptuary  Law  in  Nurnburg.   By  K.  R.  Greenfield.    $1.25;  clothj  $1.50, 

HI.  The  Privileges  and  Immunities  of  State  Citizenship.    By  R.  Howell. 

$1.00;  cloth,  $1.25. 

IV.  French  Protestantism,  1559-1562.     By  C.  G.  Kelly.     $1.25;  cloth,  $1.50. 

THIRTY-SEVENTH  SERIES.- 1919.— $4.25 

(Complete  in  four  numbers) 

I.  Unemployment  and  American  Trade  Unions.  By  D.  P.  Smelser,  Jr.  $1.25. 

II.  The  Labor  Law  of  Maryland.  By  M.  H.  Lauchheimer.  $1.25;  cloth,  $1.50. 

III.  The  American  Colonization  Society,  1817-1840.    E.  L.  Fox.    $2.00;  cloth, 

S2.25. 

IV.  The  Obligation  of  Contracts  Clause  of  the  United  States  Constitution. 

By  W.  B.  Hunting.     $1.00;  cloth,  $1.25. 

THIRTY-EIGHTH  SERIES.— 1920— $4.25 
(Complete  in  three  numbers) 
I.  The  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture.     By   W.  L.  Wanlasb. 
$1.25;  cloth,  $1.75. 
II.  The  Amalgamated  Association  of  Iron,  Steel  and  Tin  Workers.     By  J.  S. 

Robinson.     $1.50;  cloth,  $2.00. 
III.  The  Employment  of  the  Plebiscite  in  the  Determination  of  Sovereignty^ 
By  J.  Mattern.     $1.50. 

THIRTY-NINTH  SERIES.— 1921.— $5.75 
(Complete  in  three  numbers) 
I.  The  Capitalization  of  Goodwill.     By  Kiompek  Simpson.     $1.00. 

II.  The  Rise  of  the  Cotton  Mills  in  the  South.     By  Broadus  Mitchell, 

$2.50. 
III.  The  International  Molders'  Union  of  North   America.     By   Frank  T. 
Stocktun.     $1.50. 

THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS,    :    :    :    :    Baltimore,  Md. 


Published  May  1,  1922 


China  at  the  Conference 

BY 

^IV,  W.  WILLOUGHBY 

Professor  of  Political  Science  at  The  Johns  Hopkins  University 

Octavo.     435  pages.    Price  $3.00 

This  volume,  in  the  form  of  a  semi-official  report,  will 
take  its  place  along  side  the  author's  well-known  work 
"Foreign  Rights  and  Interests  in  China,"  and  will  give 
the  reader  an  accurate  statement  of  the  results  of  the 
recent  Conference  at  Washington. 

Besides  chapters  explaining  the  reasons  for  the  discus  - 
sion  by  the  Powers  of  the  political  and  international  situa- 
'tion  in  the  Far  East,  describing  the  organization  and  pro- 
cedure of  the  Conference,  and  estimating  its  results,  there 
are  chapters  dealing  severally  with  each  of  the  important 
subjects  discussed  in  the  Conference  and  regarding  which 
Treaties  or  Resolutions  were  adopted.  In  an  Appendix 
the  texts  are  given  of  these  important  documents. 

Inasmuch  as,  with  the  exception  of  a  part  of  a  single 
session  which  was  devoted  to  the  situation  in  Siberia,  the 
entire  work  of  the  Conference  so  far  as  it  dealt  with  polit- 
ical questions  in  the  Pacific  and  Far  East,  was  concerned 
v/ith  the  affairs  of  China,  the  present  volume  gives,  in 
effect,  a  comprehensive  account  of  the  work  of  that  Con- 
ference. In  order  that  it  may  be  quite  complete  in  this 
respect  there  is  given  in  the  Appendix  the  statements 
made — there  were  no  discussions — with  reference  to  the 
Siberian  situation. 

The  Johns  Hopkins  Press 

Baltimore,  Maryland,  U.  S.  A. 


COWSTITUTIONAL    GOVERNMENT    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.       By 

WOODROW  Wilson,  LL.D  ,  President  ot  the  United  Siales.     Pp.   vii  +  J36. 

OUR  CHIEF  MAGISTRATE  AND  HIS  POWERS.  By  William  Howard 
Taft,  Tvventy-seventti  President  of  tire  United  States.      Pp.  vii. -(-  165. 

CONSTITUTION.'IL  POWER  AND  WORLD  AFFAIRS.  By  George  Suth- 
erland, former  United  Stales  Senator  fro'n  Utah.      Pp.  vii -|- 202. 

WORLD  ORGANIZATION  AS  AFFECTED  BY  THE  NATURE  OF  THE 
MODERN  STATE.  By  David  Jayne  Hill,  LL.D.,  late  .Vmerican  Ambas- 
sador to  Germany.     Pp.  ix  -I-214.       Reprinted  with  new  Preface. 

THE  GENIUS  OF  THE  COMMON  LAW.  By  the  Right  Honorable  Sir  Fred- 
erick   Pollock,  Bart.,  D.C.L.,  LL.D.     Pp.  vii-j- 141. 

THOMAS  JEFFERSON.  His  Permanent  Influence  on  American  Institutions, 
By  John   Sharp  Williams,  L^.  S.   Senator  from  Mississippi.     Pp.  ix  +  330. 

THE  MECHANICS  OF  LAW  MAKING.  By  Courtenay  Ilbert,  G.  C.  B., 
CierK  of  the  House  of  Commons.      Pp.  viii  -f-  209. 

LAW  AND  ITS  ADMINISTRATION.     By  Harlan  F.  Stone,  LL.D.,  Dean  of 

the  School  of  Law,  Columbia  University,      Pp.  vii  -(-  232. 

AMERICAN  CITY  PROGRESS  AND  THE  LAW.  By  Howard  Lee  Mc- 
Bain,  Ph.D.,  Eaton  Professor  of  Municipal  Science  and  Administration,  Co- 
lumbia University.     Pp.  viii  -f  269. 

Uniformly  boand,  12mo,  cloth.     Each,  $2.00  net. 


THE  LAW  AND  THE  PRACTICE  OF  MUNICIPAL  HOME  RULE.  By  How- 
ard Lee  McB  viN,  Eaton  Proles.sor  of  .Muuicipal  Science  and  Administration 
in  Columbia  University.     8vo,  cloth,  pp.  xviii  -|-  724.     Price,  )?5.oo  nei, 

STUDIES  IN  SOUTHERN  HISTORY  AND  POLITICS.  In.scribed  to  William 
Arclnbald  Dunning,  Lieber  Professor  of  History  and  Political  Philosophy  in 
Columbia  University,  by  his  former  pupils,  the  autiiors.  A  collection  of  lifteen 
essays.     8vo,  cloth,  pp.  viii  -(-  294.     $j  00  net. 

THE    ENGLISH-SPEAKING    BROTHERHOOD    AND     THE    LEAGUE    OP 

NATIONS.  By  Sir  Charles  Walston  (Walustein),  M,  \  ,  Litt.  D.,  for- 
merly Professor  in  the  University  of  Cambridge.  i2mo,  boavds,  pp.  xx-iii-224, 
$1.60  net. 

RECORDS  OF  CIVILISATION:   SOURCES  AND  STUDIES 

HELLENIC  CIVILIZATION.  By  G.  W.  Boisford,  Ph.D.  and  E.  G.  Sihler, 
Ph.D.     8vo,  cloth,  pp.  719.     .^4.00  ne/. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  FRANKS  BY  GREGORY  BISHOP  OF  TOURS. 
Selections,  translated  with  notes.  By  Ernest  Breuaut,  Pti.D.  8vo,  cloth, 
pp.  XXV -j-  284.      Map.     ^3.00  nei. 

THE  BOOK  OF  THE  POPES  (LIBER  PONTIFICxlLIS).  Translated  with  an 
introduction.  By  LouiSE  RoPES  Loomis,  Ph.D.  8vo,  cloth,  pp.  xxii  +  169. 
^2.50  ne/. 

AH  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  HISTORY  OF  HISTORY.  By  James  T. 
SHtrrWELL,  Professor  of  History  in  Columbia  University.  8vo,  cloth,  pp.  xii-f 
339.     $4  00  net 

THE  LITERATURE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  ITS  HISTORICAL 
DEVELOPMENT.  By  JULiu.s  A.  Bkwicr,  Prof.-s-;or  of  Old  Testament  Ex- 
egesis in  Union  Theological  Seminary.     8vo,  clolh,  pp.  xiv  -f-  452.     $5.00  «(■/. 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
Columbia  University,  New  York  Oity 


LONGMANS,  GREEN  &  CO. 


THE  VILLAGE  LABOURRR.  1760-1832:  A  Study  in  the  Government  of  Eng- 
land before  the  Reform  Bill.  By  J.  L.  and  Barbara  Hammond.  8vo.  $2.25 
mt. 

"  There  is  not  a  chapter  in  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hammond's  book  which  fails  to  throw- 
new  light  on  enclosures  or  on  the  administration  of  the  poor  laws  and  the  game 
laws,  and  on  the  economic  and  social  conditions  of  the  period.  ...  A  few  other 
studies  of  governing  class  rule  before  1867  as  searchin^ly  analytical  as  Mr. 
and  Mrs.  Hammond's  book  will  do  much  to  weaken  this  tradition  and  to  make 
imperative  much  recasting  of  English  History  from  1688."— 

— Am.  Political  Science  Review. 

THE  TOWN  LABOURER,  1760-1832  :  The  New  Civilization.  By  J.  L.  Ham- 
mond and  Barbara  Hammond,  Authors  of  "  The  Village  Labourer.  1760-1832  : 
A  Study  in  the  Government  of  England  before  the  Reform  Bill."  8vo. 
$3.25  tut. 

This  volume  is  the  first  part  of  a  study  of  the  Industrial  Revolution.  It 
will  be  completed  by  another  volume  giving  in  detail  the  history  of  the  work- 
people in  various  industries,  with  a  full  account  of  the  t^uddite  rising  and  of 
the  disturbances  connected  with  the  adventures  of  the  a^-ent  provocateur  Oliver . 

"  Never  has  the  story  been  told  with  such  masterly  precision,  or  with 
such  illuminating  reference  to  the  original  sources  of  the  time,  as  in  this  book 
....  The  perspective  and  proportion  are  so  perfect  that  the  life  of  a  whole 
era,  analyzed  searchingly  and  profoundly,  passes  before  your  eyes  as  you  read." 
—  The  mat. 

"  A  brilliant  and  important  achievement.  '  The  Town  Labourer '  will  rank 
as  an  indispensable  source  of  revelation  and  of  inspiration."— 7%«  Nation 
(London). 

EN3LISH  PRISONS  UNDER  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT.  By  Sidney  and  Bea- 
trice Webb.     With  Preface  by  Bernard  Shaw.     8vo.     $5.00  net. 

This  detailed  history  of  Prison  Administration  from  the  Seventeenth  to  the 
Twentieth  Century,  uniform  with  the  authors'  other  books  on  English  Local 
Government,  supplies  the  historical  background  for  the  companion  volume, 
English  Prisons  To-day,  being  the  Report  of  the  Prison  System  Inquiry  Commit- 
tee, The  characteristic  Preface  by  Bernard  Shaw,  extendins  to  over  70  pages, 
discusses  the  Theory  of  Punishment  and  propounds  a  revolutionary  change  in 
the  treatment  of  criminals. 

EM3LI3H  PRISONS  TO-DAY:  Being  the  Report  of  the  Prison  System  Inquiry 
Committee.  Edited  by  Stephen  Haohouse,  M.A.,  and  A.  Fenner  Brockway. 
With  6  Illustrations.     8vo.     $8.50  net. 

In  the  First  part  of  the  Report  a  detailed  description  is  given  of  the  Eng- 
lish Prison  System  as  it  is  operating  to-day.  In  the  Second  Part  a  description 
is  given  of  the  mental  and  moral  effects  of  imprisonment.  The  conclusions  of 
the  Committee  are  based  upon  evidence  received  from  prison  officials,  work- 
ers among  discharged  prisoners,  and  ex-prisoners  of  many  types,  supple- 
mented by  a  study  of  official  and  unofficial  literature. 

THE  HUMAN  FACTOR  IN  BUSINESS  By  B.  Seebohm  Rowntree,  Author 
of  "Industrial  Unrest:  A  Way  Out,"  "Poverty:  A  Study  of  Town  Life," 
"How  the  Labourer  Lives,"  "The  Human  Needs  of  Labour,"  etc.  Crown 
8vo.     $2.00  net. 

"  Seebohm  Rowntree's  Human  Factor  in  Business  is  a  good  example  of 
the  attitude  taken  by  the  benevolent  employer  of  high  moral  integrity  ;  it  un- 
derstands the  whole  human  problem —except  the  humanity.  It  is  better,  I 
think,  than  most  American  employers'  accounts  of  their  workers' needs  ;  but 
it  is  a  purely  external  view  of  the  workers'  psychology."— Harold  J.  Laski  in 
Tk;  Survey. 


Fifty-five  Fifth  Avenue,  NEW  YORK 


LONGMANS,  GREEN  &  CO. 

THE  ADMINISTRATION  OF  INDUSTRIAL  iiNTERPRISES. 
With  Special  Reference  to  Factory  Practice.  By  Edward  D. 
Jones,  PhD  ,  Professor  of  Coaimerce  and  Industry,  University  of  Mich- 
igan. Witli  Illustrations  and  Bibliographies.  Large  i2mo.  $2.35 
net.      {^Seventh  Impression). 

"To  the  head  of  any  industrial  organization,  and  especially  to  the  executives  of  those 
which  have  not  long  been  created  and  are  5f.U  faced  with  many  of  the  problems  dis- 
cussed in  the  volume,  i:  should  be  particularly  useful." —  Wall  Street  yournal. 

THE  WORKS  MANAGER  TO-DAY:  An  Address  Prepared  for 
a  Series  of  Private  Gatherings  of  Works  Managers.  By  Sidney 
Wecb,  Professor  of  Public  Administration  in  the  University  of  London 
(School  of  Economic  and  Political  Scieice).  Crown  8vo.  $1.35  net 
An  examination,  in  easy  lecture  form,  of  the  problems  of  management 
of  any  considerable  industrial  enterprise,  especially  in  relation  to  the  or- 
ganization of  labor,  methods  of  remuneration,  "  .Scientific  Management" 
and  "  Welf;\re  Work,"  piecework  and  premium  bonus  systems,  restriction 
of  output  and  increase  of  production,  the  maintenance  of  discipline,  etc. 

THE  ECONOMIC  HISTORY  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES.     By 

Ernest  Ludlow  Bogart,  Ph.D.,  Associate  Professor  of  Economics  in 
the  University  of  Illinois.  With  26  Maps  and  95  Illustrations.  Crown 
8vo.  i?2.oo. 
READINGS  IN  THE  ECONOMIC  HISTORY  OF  THE  UNITED 
STATES.  By  E.  L.  Bogart,  Ph.D.,  and  C.  M.  Thompson,  Ph.D., 
of  the  University  of  Illinois,     8vo.     $3-20. 

A  source  book  which  collects  in  one  volume  contemporary  material 
illustrating  the  most  important  economic  developments  in  the  country's 
history.  The  material  is  arranged  as  follows :  Eight  chapters  deal  with 
the  United  States  before  180S;  nine  with  the  period  of  1S0S-1860;  and 
si-x  with  the  period  since  i860. 
RAILROADS.  In  two  volumes.  By  William  Z.  Ripley,  Ph.D. 
Nathaniel  Ropes  Professor  of  Economics  in  Harvard  University,  author 
of  "  Railway  Problems,"  etc. 

Vol.  I.  RATES  AND  REGULATION,  with  41  maps  and  diagrams. 

8vo.     s4  00  net 
Vol.  11.  FINANCE   AND   ORGANIZATION,  with  29  maps  and 
diagrams.     8vo.     ^4.00  net. 

PRINCIPLES  OF  ECONOMICS:  with  Special  Reference  to  Amer- 
ican Conditions.  By  Edwin  R.  A.  Seligman,  LL.D.  McVickar 
Professor  of  Political  Economy  in  Columbia  University.  Ninth  Edi- 
tion, Revised  (1921).     $3.00  net. 

AN   ESSAY    ON    MEDIEVAL    ECONOMIC    TEACHING.     By 

George  O'Brien,  L-itt.D.,  author  of  "  The  Economic  History  of  Ireland 
in  the  Seventeenth  Century,"  "The  Economic  History  of  Ireland  in  the 
Eighteenth  Century,  etc."     $4.75  net. 

It  is  the  aim  of  this  essay  to  examine  and  present  in  as  concise  a  form 
as  possible  the  principles  and  rules  which  guided  and  regalued  men  in 
tlieir  economic  and  social  relations  during  the  period  known  as  tiie 
Middle  Ages. 


Fifty-five  Fifth  Avenue,  NEW  YORK 


p.  S.  KING  &  SON,  Ltd. 


WEALTH  AND  TAXABLE  CAPACITY 

Bv  Sir  JosiAH  Stamp,  K.B.E.,  D.Sc.  Being  the  Newmarch  Lectures  of 
1920-2L     10s.  6d.     Postage  yd. 

In  the  House  of  Commons  during  the  Debate  on  the  Budget,  April,  1922,  these  Lectures 
were  referred  to. 

Mominn  Pofl :  "  The  book  should  be  read,  and  read  carefully,  by  all  who  are  concerned 
in  post-war  financial  problems.  .  .  .  When  the  book  has  been  mastered  the  reader  will  be 
able  to  consider  most  of  the  current  financial  problems  without  being  taken  in  by  the 
many  »peeious  and  ingenious  remedies  which  are  put  forward." 

S0CL4LISATI0N  IN  THEORY  AND  PRACTICE 

By  Heineich  Steobel,  Finance  Alinistei*  in  the  Prussian  Revolutionary 
Government  of  November,  1918.  Tmnslated  from  the  original  by  H.  J. 
Stenning.     1  Os.  6d.     Postage  9d. 

New  f^tatesmnn  :  "  Herr  Strobel  has  written  an  exceeding  valuable  book  .  .  .  brings  out 
clearly  many  problems  and  difficulties  which  have  hardly  begun  to  be  appreciated  here. 
Above  all,  he  stresses  the  almost  inevitable  failure  of  atternpts  to  devise  plans  of  Socialisa- 
tion on  the  spur  of  the  moment.  ...  It  would  do  every  believer  in  Socialisation  good  to 
read  Herr  Strobel's  book  and  to  endeavour  to  think  out  its  applications  to  the  situation  in 
this  countr>\" 

THE  TRADE  CYCLE 

An  Account  of  the  Causes  Producing  Rhythmical  Changes  in  the  Activity  of 
Business.  By  F.  Lavinc4T0X,  M.A.,  Girdler's  Lecturer  in  the  University  of 
Cambridge.     3s.  6d.     Postage  4d. 

Economist:  "Mr.  Lavington  has  performed  a  difficult  and  very  useful  task  extremely 
■well  in  the  volume  in  which  he  explains  in  terms  capable  of  being  understood  by  all  and 
sundrv.  provided  they  are  prerared  to  concentrate  their  attention,  the  workings  and  prog- 
ress of  Trade  Cycles  ...  at  once  the  best  and  simplest  account  of  the  fluctuations  of  indus- 
try that  has  been  published." 

A  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANADIAN  RAILWAY 

By  Haeold  a.  Ixxis,  Ph.D.,  Chicago.     123.  6d.     Postage  9d. 

In  this  Study  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  trace  the  HLstory  of  the  Canadian  Pacific 
Railway  from  *n  Evolutionary  and  Scientific  point  of  view. 

Contp;nts :— Introduction  :  The  Pacific  Coast;  The  Hudson  Bay  Drainage  Basin  ;  On  the 
St.  Lawrence  From  National  to  Economic  Union  (18TO-1SS0)— Fulfilment  of  the  Contract— 
Expan.sion  of  the  Road  and  the  Development  of  Freight  Traffic — The  Freight  Rate  Situa- 
tion—Passenger Traffic— Earnings  from  Operations— Expenses— Total  Receipts— Capital— 
<  'ODclusion— Aopendix. 

THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  OFFICIAL  INDEPENDENCE.     WITH  PARTIC- 
ULAR REFERENCE  TO  THE  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  CANADA 

By  R.  MacGregor  Dawson,  M. A.,  D.Sc.  (Econ.).  With  Introduction  by 
Prof.  Graham  Wallas,  M.A.     10s.  6d.     Postage  9d. 

This  book  is  an  attempt  to  analyse  the  conception  of  independence  in  the  Modern  State— 
an  idea  which,  though  it  finds  expression  in  a  multitude  of  practical  forms,  has  been  ig- 
nored by  the  majority  of  writers  on  Politics.  In  order  to  make  the  discussion  more  con- 
crete, the  author  has  thought  it  "rriser  to  confine  himself  to  Canadian  Government,  and  has 
only  enlarged  this  sphere  when  comparison  with  some  Other  country  demanded  it. 


Orchard  House,  2-4  Great  Smith  Street 
Westminster,   England 


The  Academy  of  Political  Science 

in  the  City  of  New  York 

The  Academy  of  Political  Science,  founded  in  1880,  is  com- 
posed of  men  and  women  interested  in  political,  economic  and 
social  questions.  Members  receive  the  Political  Science  Quar- 
terly and  the  Proceedings  of  the  Academy,  and  are  entitled  to 
admission  to  all  meetings,  lectures  and  receptions  under  the 
auspices  of  the  Academy,  The  annual  dues  are  five  dollars. 
Address  the  Secretary  of  the  Academy  of  Political  Science, 
Columbia  University,  New  York. 

POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY 

Managing  Editor 
PARKER  T.  MOON 

The  Quarterly  is  devoted  to  the  historical,  statistical  and 
comparative  study  of  politics,  economics,  sociology  and  public 
law.  Every  article  is  signed  and  expresses  simply  the  personal 
view  of  the  writer.  Each  issue  contains  scholarly  reviews  and 
brief  book  notes.  A  valuable  Record  of  Political  Events 
throughout  the  v/orld  is  printed  as  a  supplement  to  the  Sep- 
tember issue.  Address  editorial  communications  to  the  Politi- 
cal Science  Quarterly;  business  communications  to  the  Acad- 
emy of  Political  Science,  Columbia  University,  New  York. 

PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ACADEMY  OF 
POLITICAL  SCIENCE 

The  Proceedings  are  issued  by  the  Academy  as  a  record  of 
its  activities  and  as  a  means  of  giving  detailed  treatment  to 
special  subjects  of  importance.  Recent  issues  arc :  National 
Expenditures  and  Public  Economy,  208  pp.,  Industrial  Co- 
operation, 256  pp.,  Railroads  and  Business  Prosperity,  130  pp. 
Price  $1.50  each  in  paper  covers.  A  full  list  of  the  numbers 
thus  far  issued  will  be  sent  on  request.  Address  Academy 
of  Political    Science,   Columbia  University,  New  York. 


Sliiaics  in  History,  Economies  and  Public  Law 

edited  by 

Faculty  of  Political  Science  of  Columbia  University 

VOLinilE  I,  1891-92.    2nd  Ed.,  1897.    396  pp.    Price,  clot'tt,  $3.50. 

1.  Tlie  DIvoi'ce  Problem.    AStudy  In  Statistics. 

By  Walter  F.  Willcox,  Ph.D.     Price,  75  cents. 

a.  The  TTIstory  of  Tni'iff  Administration  in  the  United  States, Irom  Colonial 
Times  to  tlio  McJilnley  Administrative  Bill. 

By  John  Dean  Goss,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo. 

3.  History  of  Municipal  Land  O-wnersliip  on  Manhattan  Island. 

By  GsoRCK  AsHTON  Black,  Ph.D.     Price,  ^i.oo. 

4.  Financial  History  of  Massaclinsetts. 

By  Charles  H,  J.  Douglas,  Ph.D.    Price,  |i.oo. 

VOLUME  II,  1892-93.    (See  note  on  last  page.) 

1.  [5]  The  Economics  of  the  Russian  Tillage. 

By  Isaac  A.  Hourwich,  Ph.D.     {Out  of  prints. 

2.  [6]  Bankruptcy.    A  Study  in  Comparative  Legislation. 

By  Samuel  W.  DuNscoMB,  Jr.,  Ph.D.    {I^oi  sold  separately.) 

3.  [7J  Special  Assessments  ;  A  Study  in  Municipal  Finance. 

By  Victor  Rosewater,  Ph.D.    Second  Edition,  1898.     Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  III,  1893.    465  pp.    (See  note  on  last  page.) 

1.  [8]  ♦History  of  Elections  in  American  Colonies. 

By  Cortland  F    Bishop,  Ph.D.     {A'ot  sold  separately.) 

2.  [9]  The  Commercial  Policy  of  England  toAvard  the  American  Colonies. 

By  George  L.  Beer,  A.  M.     (Out  of  print.) 

VOLUME  IV,  1893-94.    438  pp.    (See  note  on  last  page.) 

1.  [10]  Financial  Histoi-y  of  Virginia. 

By  William  Z.  Ripley,  Pk.D.     (Not  sold  separately.) 

2.  [  I  11*  The  Inheritance  Tax.  ByMAX  West, Ph.D.     Second  Edition. 1908    Price. |2oo. 

5.  [1»J  Histo''v  of  Taxation  in  Vermont.      By  Frederick  .\.  Wood,  Ph  D.(Oa^  of  print.) 

VOLUME  V,  1895-96.    498  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [131  Double  Taxation  in  the  United  States. 

By  Francis  Walkbr,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo. 

3.  [14]  The  Separation  of  Governmental  Po'wers. 

By  William  Bondy.  LL.B.,  Ph.D.     Price,  ^i.oo. 
8.  [15]  Municipal  Government  in  Michigan  and  Ohio. 

By  Delos  F.  Wilcox.  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 

VOLUME  VI,  1896.    601  pp.    Price,  cloth.  $4.50 ;  Paper  covers,  $4.00. 

[16]  History  of  Proprietary  Government  in  Pennsylvania. 

By  William  Robert  Shepherd,  Ph.D. 

VOLUIIE  VII,  1896.    512  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [17]  History  of  the  Transition  from  Provincial  to  Commonwealth  Gov- 
ernment In  Massachusetts.  By  Harrv  A.  Gushing,  Ph.D.    Price,  jjz.co. 
%.  [18]*Speculation  on  the  StoclcandProduce  Exchanges  of  the  United  States 

By  Henry  Crosby  Emery,  Ph.D.     Price,  J1.50. 

VOLUME  Vni,  1896-98.    551  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [19]  The  Struggle  between  President  Johnson  and  Congress  over  Recon- 

struction. By  Gharlbs  Ernest  Ghadsky,  Ph.D.    Price,  gi.oo. 

2.  [20]    Recent  Centralizing  Tendencies  in  State  Educational  Administra- 

tion. By  William  Clarence  Webster,  i-h.D.     Price,  75  cents. 

8.  [8 1]  The  Abolition  of  Privateering  and  the  Declaration  of  Paris. 

By  Francis  R.  Stark,  LL.B.,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji  00. 

4.  [29]  Public  Administration  In  Massachusetts.    The  Relation  of  Central 

to  Local  Activity.  By  Robert  Harvey  Whittek,  Ph.D.     Price,  ^i.oo, 

VOLUME  IS,  1897-98.    617  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [23]  *English  Local  Government  of  To-day.    A  Study  of  the  Relations  of 

Central  and  Local  Government.  By  Milo  Roy  Maltbie,  Ph.D.    Price,  j,2.oo. 

2.  [24]  German  TVage  Theories.    A  History  of  their  Development. 

„    ,__  ,  By  James  W.  Crook,  Ph.D.     Price,  ^i.oo. 

8.  [25]  Tne  Centralization  of  Administration  in  New  York  State. 

By  John  Archibald  Fairlib,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^i.oo^ 


VOLUME  X,  1898-99.    409  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [S6]  Sympatlietie  Strikes  and  Sympatlietio  Lockouts. 

By  Frud  S.  Hall,  Ph.D.    Price^  $i.oa 

2.  [37]  *KIiode  Island  and  tlie  Formation  of  ihe  IJnion. 

By  FnANK  Oreenb  Bates,  Ph.D.     Price,  iSt.so. 

3.  [S8].  Centralized  Administration  of  Liquor  La-ws  in  the  American  Com^ 

nionwealtlis.  By  Clement  Moore  Lacey  Sites,  Ph.D.     Price,  gi.oo. 

VOLUME  XI,  1899.    495  pp.    Price,  clotli,  4.00;  paper  covers,  $3.50. 

■  f  9]  Tlie  Growtli  of  Cities.  By  Adna  Ferrin  Wbbhr  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XII,  1899-1900.    586  pp.    Price,  clotli,  $4.00. 

i't^  [30]  History  and  Functions  of  Central  Labor  Unions. 

By  William  Maxwell  Burke,  Ph.D.     Price,  ^i.oo. 
^,  [31.]  Colonial  Imniiaration  Laws. 

By  Edward  Emerson  Proper,  A.M.     Price,  75  cents. 
S»  [38]  History  of  Military  Pension  Legislation  in  the  United  States. 

By  William  Henry  Glasson,  Ph.D.     Price,  ^i.oo. 

4.  [33]  History  of  the  Theory  of  Sovereignty  since  Rousseau. 

By  Charles  h,.  Mekriam,  Jr.,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XIII,  1901.    570  pp.    Price,  clotli,  $4.00. 

1.  [34]  The  Legal  Property  Kelations  of  Married  Parties. 

By  IsiDOR  LoKE,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

2.  [35]  Political  Nativlsm  in  New  York  State. 

By  Louis  Dow  Scisco,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 
8.  [38]  The  Reconstruction  of  Georgia.        By  Edwin  C.  Woollky,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  XIV,  1901-1902.    576  pp.    Price,  clotli,  $4.00. 

i.  [37]  Loyallsm  in  Nevr  York  during  the  American  Revolution. 

By  Alexander  Clarence  Flick,  Ph.D.    Price.  J2.oo. 

2.  [38]  The  Economic  Theory  of  Risk  and  Insurance. 

By  Allan  H.  Willett,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.so. 

3.  [39]  The  Eastern  Question:  A  Study  In  Diplomacy. 

By  Stephen  P.  H.  Duggan,  Ph.D.     Price,  $i.oo. 

VOLUME  XV,  1902.    427  pp.    Price,  clotli,  $3.50;  Paper  covers,  $3.00. 

[40]  Crime  in  Its  Relation  to  Social  Progress.       By  Arthur  Cleveland  Hall,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XVI,  1202-1903.    547  pp.    Price,  clotli,  $4.00. 

1,  [41]  The  Past  and  Present  of  Commerce  In  Japan. 

By  Yktaro  Kinosit.\,  Ph.D.     Price,  ^1.50. 

5.  [43]  The  Employment  of  Women  in  the  Clothins;  Trade. 

By  Mabel  Huro  Willbt,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1,50. 
3.  [43]  The  Centralization  of  Administration  in  Ohio. 

By  Samuel  P.  Orth,  Ph.D.     Price,  J1.50. 

VOLUME  XVII,  1903.    635  pp.    Price,  clotli,  $4.00. 

1.  [44]  *Centralizing  Tendencies  in  the  Administration  of  Indiana. 

By  William  A.  Rawlks,  Ph.D.     Price,  fa. so. 
S.  [45]  Principles  of  Justice  in  Taxation,     By  Stephen  F.  Weston,  Ph.D.    Price,  S82.00. 

VOLUME  XVIII,  1903.    753  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

3.  [46]  The  Administration  of  lowo.       By  Harold  Martin  Bowman,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^1.50. 
3.  [47]  Turgot  and  the  Sis  Edicts.  By  Robert  P.  Shepherd,  Ph.D.    Price,  J1.50. 

3.  [48]  Hanover  and  Prussia,  1795-1803.       By  Guy  Stanton  Ford,  Ph.D.    Price,  i2.cx>. 

VOLUME  XIX,  1903-1905.    588  pp.    Price,  clotli,  $4.00. 

a.  [4  9]  .TosialiTucker,  Eccnomist.  By  Waltpr  Ernest  Clahk  PhD.    Price,  $1.50. 

2.  150]  History  and  Criticism  of  the  Labor  Theory  of  Vnltio  Ju  3':ngllsU  Polit- 

ical Economy.  By  Albekx  C.  WmrAKUK,  Ph.l'.    Price,  Jt. 50. 

3.  [51]  Trade  Unions  and  the  Law  In  New  York.  t«.  t^     r>  •      .. 

By  Gbokgk  Gorham  Croat,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^i.oo. 

VOLUME  XX,  1904.    514  pp.    Price,  clotli.  $3.50. 


VOLUME  XXI,  1904.    746  pp.    Price,  clotli,  .?4.50. 

1.  [54]  *TreatIes,  their  Making  and  Enforcement.  t,u  r.  ti        * 

'■       *  By  Samuel  B.  Crandall,  Ph.D.  Price,  $1.50. 

3.  [55]  The  Sociology  of  a  New  Tork  City  inock.  nu  t^  d  ^  * 

'       '  By  Thomas  jESsnJoNKS,  Ph.D.  Price,  $1.00. 

3.  [56]  Pre-Maithnslan  Doctrines  of  Popii  atJon .  t,u  r>  o  •  .  «- 

*-       ^  By  Charles  E.  Stangeland,  Ph.D.  Price,  Ja. 50. 


VOLUME  XXII.  1905.    520  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50;  paper  covers,  $3.00. 

(57]  The  Historical  Development  of  the  Poor  L.aw  of  Connecticut. 

By  Kdwakd  W.  Catbn,  Ph.  D. 

VOLUME  XXin,  1905.    594  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [58J  The  Economics  of  Land  Tenure  In  Georgia. 

Hy  Enoch  Marvin  Banks,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo. 
'i.  [59]  Mistake  In  Contract.    A  Study  In  Comparative  .Inrisprndonce. 

By  Edwin  C.  IMcKeag,  Ph.D.     Price,  |i.oo. 
;}.  [60]  Combination  In  the  Mlnlner  Industry. 

Ily  Henry  R.  Mussky,  Ph.D.    Price.  Ji.oo. 
4.  [01]  The  English  Craft  Guilds  and  the  Governnient. 

By  Stella  Kramer.  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo, 

VOLUME  XXIV,  1905.    521  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [62]  The  Place  of  Magic  in  the  Intellectual  History  of  Europe. 

By  Lynn  Tkorndike,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo, 

2.  [G3]  The  Ecclesiastical  Edicts  of  the  Theodosian  Code. 

By  William  K.  Boyd,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo. 

3.  [64]  *The  International  Position  of  Japan  as  a  Great  Power. 

By  Skiji  G.  Hishida,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.oo, 

VOLUME  XXV,  1906-07.    600  pp.    (Sold  only  in  Sets.) 

1.  [65]  *MunicIpal  Control  of  Public  Utilities. 

By  O.  L.  Pond,  Ph.D.    {JVot  sold  separate!^.) 

2.  [6G]  The  Budget  in  the  American  Common w^ealths. 

By  Eugene  E.  Agger,  Ph.D.     Price,  ^1.50. 

3.  [67]  The  Finances  ol  Cleveland.  By  Charles  C.  Williamson,  Ph.D.    Price,  52.00. 

VOLUME  XXVI .  1007..   559  pp.    Pi-ice,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [6S]  Trade  and  Currency  in  Early  Oregon. 

By  James  H.  Gilbert,  Ph.D.     Price,  gi.oo. 

2.  [69]  LiUther's  Table  Talk.  By  Preserved  Smith,  Ph.D.     Price,  ;^i.oo. 

3.  [70]  The  Tobacco  Industry  in  the  United  States. 

By  ilEYER  Jagobstbin,  Ph.D.     Price,  $z  50. 

4.  [7 1]  Social  Democracy  and  Population. 

Py  Alvan  a.  Tenney,  Ph.D.     Price,  75  cents, 

VOLUME  XXVII,  1907.    578  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [72]  The  Economic  Policy  of  Kobert  "VValpole. 

By  NoRRis  A.  Bkisco,  Ph.D.    Price,  J1.50, 

2.  [73]  The  United  States  Steel  Corporation. 

By  Abraham  Berglund,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji  50. 

3.  [74]  The  Taxation  of  Corporations  in  Massachusetts. 

By  Harrv  G.  Friedman,  Ph.D.    Price,  J1.50. 

VOLUME  XXVin.  1907.    554  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [75]  DeWltt  Clinton  and  the  Origin  of  the  Spoils  System  in  New^  York. 

By  Howard  Lee  McBain,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

5.  [76]  The  Development  of  the  Legislature  of  Colonial  Virginia. 

By  Elmer  I.  Miller,  Ph.D.     Price,  J1.50, 
3.  [7  7]  The  Distribution  of  Ownership. 

By  Joseph  Harding  Underwood,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji. 50. 

VOLUME  XXIX,  1908.    703  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [78]  Early  Xew  England  To"wns.  By  Annb  Bush  MacLear,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji. 50. 

S.  [79]  2s  ev7  Hampshire  as  a  lioyal  Province. 

By  William  H.  Fry,  Ph.D.    Price,  $3.00. 

VOLUME  XXX,  1S08.    712  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50 ;  Paper  covers,  $4.00. 
[80]  The  Province  of  New  Jersey,  1664—1738.  By  Edwin  P.  Tanner,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  ZXXI,  1808.    575  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [81]  Private  Freight  Cars  and  American  Railroads. 

By  L.  D.  H.  Weld,  Ph.D.     Price,  <i.so. 

2.  183]  Ohio  before  1850.  By  Robert  E.  Chaddock,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^1.50. 

3.  [83]  Consanguineous  Marriages  in  the  American  Population. 

By  Gedrg."?  B.  Louis  Arner,  Ph.D.     Price,  75  cents. 

4.  [84]  Adolphe  Quetelet  as  Statistician.      By  Frank  H.  Hankins,  Ph.D.    Price,  51.25, 

VOLUME  XXXII,  1808.    705  pp.    Price,  cloth,  4.50;  paper  covers,  $4.00. 

85]  The  Enforcement  of  the  Statutes  of  Liaborers. 

By  Bertha  Havbn  Putnam,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XXXIII,  190S-1909.  .  635  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [86]  Factory  I^eglslation  in  Maine.  By  E.  Stagg  Whitin.A.B.    Price.gi.oo. 

2.  [87]  *PsychologicalInterpretations  of  Society. 

roD-  -  ^y  Michael  M.  Davis,  Jr.,  Ph.D.     Price,  J!2.oo, 

3.  I88i  *An  Introduction  to  the  Source^s  relating  to  the  Germanic  Invasions. 

By  Carlton  J.  H.  Hayes,  Ph.D.    Price,  gi. 50. 


VOLUME  XXXIVr  1909.    628  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

I.  [80]  Transportation  and  Industrial  Dsvelopment  In  the  Middle  "W est. 

By  William  F.  Gephart,  Ph.D.     Price,  S2.o». 
S.  [90.1  Social  Reforra  and  til©  Reformation. 

By  Jacob  Salwyn  ScHAPiRO,  Ph.D.     Price,  J!i. 25. 
S.  [91]  Responsibility  for  Crime.  By  Philip  A.  Parsons.  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.30. 

VOLUME  XXXV,  1909.    568  pp.    Price,  cloth.  $4.50. 

1.  [9S]  Tlio  Conflict  over  tlie  Judicial  Powers  In  tlie  United  States  to  1870. 

By  Charles  Grove  Haines,  Ph.D.     Price,  Si. 50. 
S.  [93]  A  Study  of  tlie  Population  of  Manhattanvllle. 

By  Howard  Brown  Woolston,  Ph.D.     Price,  *i. 25. 
8.  [94]  *Dlvorce:  A  Study  in  Social  Causation. 

By  James  P.  Lichtenbkrgbr,  Ph.D.    Price,  J1.50, 

VOLUME  XXXVI,  1910.    542  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [95]  *ReconstrnctIou  in  Texas.     By  Charles  V/illiam  Ramsdell,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.50. 
S.  [96]  *  Tlie  Transition  in  Virginia  from  Colony  to  Commonwealth. 

By  Charles  Ramsdell  Linglby,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji. 50. 

VOLUME  XXXVII,  1910.    606  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [97]  Standards  of  Reasonableness  in  Local  Frelgtit  Discriminations. 

By  John  Maurice  Clark,  Ph.D.    Price.  |i.2S. 
3.  [98]  Legal  Development  in  Colonial  Massacliusetts. 

By  Charles  J.  Hilkey,  Ph.D,     Price,  $1.2$. 
8.  [99]  *  Social  and  Mental  Traits  of  the  Negro. 

By  Howard  W.  Odum,  Ph.D.     Priee,  ^2.00. 

VOLUME  XXXVIII,  1910.    463  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [100!  The  Public  Domain  and  Democracy. 

By  Robert  Tudor  Hill,  Ph.D.     Price,  ^a.oo. 

2,  [lOl]  Organlsmic  Theories  of  the  State. 

By  FftANCis  W.  CoKER,  Ph.D.    Price,  JSi-So. 

VOLUME  XXXIX,  1910-1911.    651  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [103]  The  Making  of  the  Balkan  States. 

By  William  Smith  Murray,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

2.  [103]  Political  History  of  Nexi  YqtIs.  State  during  the  Period  of  the  Civil 

"VVar^  By  Sidney  David  Brummer,  Ph.  D.    Price,  3.00. 

VOLUME  XL,  1911.    633  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [104]  A  Survey  of  Constitutional  Development  in  China. 

By  Hawkling  L.  Yen,  Ph  D.    Price,  ^i.oo. 
8.  [105J  Ohio  Politics  during  the  Civil  War  Period. 

By  George  H.  Porter,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.75. 

3.  [106]  The  Territorial  Basis  of  Government  under  the  State  Constitutions. 

By  Alfred  Zant2ingei«  Reed,  Ph.D.     Price,;Ji.7S. 

VOLUME  XLI,  1911.    514  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50;  paper  covers,  $3.00. 

[107]  New  Jersey  as  a  Royal  Province.  By  Edgar  Jacob  Fisher,  Ph.  D. 

VOLUME  XLII,  1911.    400  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.00;  paper  covers,  $2.50. 

[1081  Attitude  of  American  Courts  In  Labor  Cases. 

By  George  Gorham  Groat,  Ph.D, 

VOLUME  XLIII,  1911.    633  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1«  [109]  *Industrial  Causes  of  Congestion  of  Population  In  New  York  City. 

By  Edward  Ewinc;  Pratt,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 
i.  [110]  Education  and  the  Mores.  By  F.  Stuart  Cuapin,  Ph.D.    Price.  75  cents. 

3.  till]  The  British  Consuls  In  the  Confederacy.  ,  „     „ 

By  Milledge  L.  Bonham,  Jr.,  Ph.D.    Price, $a.o«. 

VOLUMES  XLIV  and  XLV.  1911.    745  pp. 
Price  for  the  two  volumes,  cloth,  $6.00 ;  paper  covers,  $5.00. 

fllS  and  113]  The  Economic  Principles  of  Confucius  and  his  School. 

By  CiiKN  Huan-Chano,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XL VI,  1911-1912.    623  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [114]  The  RIcardlan  Socialists.  By  Esthfu  Lowcnthal,  Ph  D.    Pr!ce.$i.o« 

S.  [115]  Ibi-ahim  Pasha,  Grand  Vizier  of  Suloiman,  the  JMngniriccnt. 

By  Hbstuk  Donaldson  Jbnkins,  Ph.D.     i'rice,  fi.oo 

3.  tll6]*SyndlcalIsmlnErance.  t>.  t^     c        i   a-.-  t. .      ,, 

By  Louis  Lhvink,  Ph.D.    Second  edition.  1914.    Price,  ffr.50. 

4.  [117]    A  HooRler  Village.  By  Nkwbll  Lhkov  Sims,  Ph.U.    Price.  f,i.yx. 


VOLUME  XLVII,  1912.    544  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1,  [lis]  The  Politics  of  Mlcblgan,  1865-1878, 

By  Harriettk  M.  Dilla,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 
a.  [1 19]  •The  United  States  Beet  Sugar  Industry  and  the  Tariff. 

By  Roy  G,  Blakky,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ja. 00. 

VOLUME  SLVni,  1912.    493  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [190]  Isldor  of  Seville.  By  Ernest  Brbhaut,  Ph.  D.    Price,  J2.00. 

%.  [121]  Progress  and  Uniformity  In  ChIld-r,abor  L,effIslRtion. 

By  William  Fielding  Ogburn,  Ph.D.     Price,  f  1.75. 

VOLUME  ZLIX,  1912.    592  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [1S51  British  Radicalism  1791=1797.  By  Walter  Phelps  Hall.    Price,$2.oo. 

S.  L123J  A.  Comparative  Study  of  the  Lavy  of  Corporations. 

By  Arthur  K.  Kuhn,  Ph.D.     Price,  S1.50. 
S.  [124]  rChe  Negro  at  Work  in  New  Tork  City. 

By  GhorgkE.  Hatnes,  Ph.D.     Price,  J1.25. 

VOLUME  L,  1911.    481  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [125] 'The  Spirit  of  Chinese  Philanthropy.        By  Yai  Yue  Tsu,  Ph.D.    Price, ^i.oo. 
S.  [12UJ  *The  Alien  in  China.  By  Vi.  Kyuin  Wellington  Koo,  Ph.D.    Price,  552.50. 

VOLUME  LI,  1912.    4to.  Atlas.    Price:  cloth,  $1.50;  paper  covers,  $1.00. 

1.  [1S7]  The  Sale  of  Liquor  in  the  South. 

By  Leonard  S.  Blakky,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  LII,  1912.    489  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [1281  *Provincial  and  tioeal  Taxation  in  Canada. 

Bv  Solomon  Vinbberg,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 
S.  [129]  *The  Distribution  of  Income. 

By  Frank  Hatch  Streightofp,  Ph.D.     Price,  ^1,50. 
S.  [130]  *The  Finances  of  Vermont.  By  Frederick  A.  Wood,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^i.oo. 

VOLUME  LIII,  1913.    789  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50;  paper,  $4.00. 

[131]  The  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction  in  Tlorida.        By  W.  W.  Davis,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  LIV,  1913.    604  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [133]    *  Privileges  and  Immunities  of  Citizens  of  the  United  States. 

By  Arnold  Johnson  Lieh,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 
9.  [133]    The  Supreme  Court  and  Unconstitutional  Legislation. 

By  Blaine  Free  Moore,  Ph.D.     Price,  ^i.oo. 

S.  [134]  *Indian  Slavery  in  Colonial  Times  ^within  the  Present  liimits  of  the 

United  States.  By  Almon  Wheeler  Lauber,  Ph.D.     Price,  I3.00. 

VOLUIVIE  LV,  1913.    665  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [135]    *A  Political  History  of  the  State  of  Xew  Tork. 

By  Homer  A.  Stebbins,  Ph.D.    Price,  J4.00. 
S.  [136]    *The  EarlyPersecutionsof  the  Christians. 

By  Leon  H.  Cani'ibld,  Ph.D.    Price,   J1.50. 

VOLUME  LVI,  1913.    406  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [137]  Speculation  on  the  New  York  Stock  Exchange,  1904-1907. 

By  Algernon  Ashbuknek  Osborne.      Price,  $1.50. 
S.  [138]  The  Policy  of  the  United  States  towards  Industrial  Monopoly. 

By  Osw.vLD  Whitman  Knauth,  Ph.D.     Price,  ;Soo. 

VOLUME  LVII,  1914.    670  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [139]  *The  Civil  Service  of  Great  Britain. 

By  Robert  Moses,  Ph.D.     Price,  J2.00. 
S.  [140]  The  Financial  History  of  New  York  State. 

By  Don  C.  Sowers.     Price,  J2.S0, 

VOLUME  LVIII,  1914.    684  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50;  paper,  $4.00. 

[141]  Reconstruction  in  North  Carolina. 

By  J.  G.  DB  RouLHAC  Hamilton,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  LIX,  1914.    625  pp.    Pries,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [148]  The  Development  of  Modern  Turkey  by  means  of  Its  Press. 

By  Ahmed  Emin,  Ph.D.  Price,  Ji.oo. 
S.  [143]  The  System  of  Taxation  In  China,  1614-1911. 

By  Shao-Kwan  Chen,  Ph.  D.  Price,  ;gi.oo. 

8.  [144]  The  Currency  Problem  in  China.  By  Wen  Pin  Wei,  Ph.D.  Price,  31.25. 

4.  1 146]  *Jewish  Immigration  to  the  United  States. 

By  Samuel  Joseph,  Ph.D.  Price,  $1.50. 


VOLUME  LX.    1914.    516  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [146]  *Constantine  tlie  Great  and  Christianity. 

By  Christopher  Bush  Coleman,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo. 
S.  [1471  Tlie  Establishment  of  Christianity  and  the  Proscription   of   Pa- 
ganism. By  Maud  Aline  HuTTMAN,  Ph.D.     Price,  J2.00. 

VOLUME  LXI.    1914.    496  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4-00. 

1.  [148]  *The  Kallway  Conductors:  A  Study  In  Organized  Labor. 

By  Edwin  Clyde  Robbins.     Price,  Si.S". 
S.  [149]  *The  Finances  of  the  City  of  New  Yoi-k. 

By  Yin-Ch'u  Ma,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.50. 

VOLUME  LXII.    1914.    414  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

[150]  The  Journal  of  the  Joint  Committee  of  Fifteen  on  Reconstruction. 
39th  Congress,  1865 — 1867.  By  Benjamin  B.  Kendrick,  Ph.D.    Price,  I3.00. 

VOLUME  LXIII.    1914.    661  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [151]  Emlle  Durkheim's  Contributions  to  Sociological  Theory. 

By  Charles  Elmer  Gehlke,  Ph.D.  Price,  Ji. 30. 
8.  [15S]  The  Nationalization  of  Eailyrays  in  Japan. 

By  TosHiHARU  Watarai,  Ph.D.  Price,  Ji.as. 
3.  [153]  Population:  A  Stud.y  In  Malthusianism. 

By  Warren  S.  Thompson,  Ph.D.  Price,  J1.7S. 

VOLUME  LXIV.    1815.    646  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [154]  *Reconstruction  in  Georgia.  By  C.  Mildred  Thompson,  Ph.D.     Price,  3.00. 

a.  [155]  *The  Kevlew  of   American  Colonial  Legislation  by  the    Klnsr   In 

Council.  By  Elmer  Beecher  Russell,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.75. 

VOLUME  LXV.    1915.    624  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [156]  *The  Sovereign  Council  of  Ne-w  France 

By  Raymond  Du  Bois  Cahall,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.35, 
3.  [157]  *Sclentiflc  Management  (3rd.  ed.  193S). 

By  Horace  B.  Drury,  Ph.D.    Price,  fa.oo. 

VOLUME  LXVI.    1915.    655  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [158]  *The  Recognition  Policy  of  the  United  States. 

By  Julius  Goebel,  Jr.,  Ph.D.  Price.  ^3.00. 

8.  [159]  Railway  Problems  in  China.  By  Chih  Hsu,  Ph.D.  Price,  $1.50. 

3.  [160]  *The  Boxer  Rebellion.  By  Paul  H.  Clements,  Ph.D.  Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  LXVII.    1916.    5S8  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [161]  ^Russian  Sociology.  By  Julius  F.  Heckkr,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.50. 

8.  116'3J  State  Regulation  of  Railroads  in  the  South. 

By  Maxwell  Fekguson,  A.  M.,  LL.B.     Price,  Jr. 75. 

VOLUME  LXVIIL    1916.    518  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

[168]  The  Origins  of  the  Islamic  State.         By  Philip  K.  Hitti,  Ph.D.     Price,  I4.00. 

VOLUME  LXIX.    1916.    489  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [164]  Railway  Monopoly  and  Rate  Regulation.        ,   „  ^  r,u  ,^     r.  •      .. 

By  Robert  J.  McFall,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ja  oo. 

S.  [165]  The  Butter  Industry  in  the  United  States.  „u  t^     „  •      .. 

By  Edward  WiBST,  PhD.     Price,  ^2.00. 

VOLUME  LXX.    1916.    540  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

[166]  Mohammedan  Theories  of  Flnance^^  ^    ,  r.u  .-.     t>  •      .. 

By  Nicolas  P.  Aghnidbs,  Ph.D.     Price,  I4.00. 

VOLUME  LXXI.    1916.    476  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [167]  The  Commerce  of  Louisiana  during  the  French  Kogime,  1699—1768. 

By  N.  M.  Miller  bURKEY,  Ph.D.     Price,  $3.50. 

VOLUME  LXXIL    1916.    542  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  "168]  American  Men  of  Letters:  Their  Nature  and  Nurture. 

By  Edwin  LcAvnT  Clakkh,  Ph.D.  Price, $1.50. 

8.  [169]  The  Tariff  Problem  In  China.  l!y  Chin  Chu,  Ph.D.  Price,  I1.30. 

8.  fl70l  The  Marketing  of  Perishable  Food  Produc^ts^^^^^^   p^^^  PHce,  $1.50. 


VOLUME  LXXIII.    1917.    616  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  1171]  •The  Social  aud  Economic  Aspects  of  the  Chartist  Movement. 

By  Frank  F.  Rosenblatt,  Ph.l).    Price,  (2.00. 
8.  [178]  •The  Decline  of  the  Chartist  Movement. 

By  Preston  William  Slosson,  Ph.D.     Price,  ^2.00. 
3.  (1731  Chartism  and  the  Churches.  By  H.  U.  Faulkner,  Ph.D.    Price,  ji.zs. 

VOLUME  LXXIV.    1917.    548  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [1741  The  Rise  of  JEcclesiastlcal  Control  in  Quebec. 

By  Walter  A.  Riddell,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.75. 
3.  [1751  Political  Opinion  In  Massacliusetts  during  the  Civil  War  and  Re- 
ooustructlou.  By  Editk  Ellen  Warf,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.75. 

3.  [170]  Collective  Harealnlng:  In  the  liithogrraphic  Industry. 

By  H.  E.  HoAGLAND,  Ph.D.     Price,  gi.oo 

VOLUME  LXXV.    1917.    410  pp.    Price,  cloth,  J?4.00. 

An  extra-illustrated  and  bound  volume  is  publislied  at  S5.00. 

1.  [177]  ^'eve  York  as  an  Eighteenth  Century  Municipality.    Priorto  1731. 

By  Arthur  Everett  Peterson,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2  oo 

2.  [178J  2^ev7  Toi-k  as  an  Eighteenth  Centui-y  Municipality.     1731-1776. 

By  George  William  Edwards,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  LXXVI.    1917.    489  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [179]  *Economlc  and  Social  History  of  Chovran  County,  Xortli  Carolina. 

By  W.  Scott  Bovce,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.50. 
8.  [180]  Separation  of  State  and  Local  Kevenues  in  the  LTnited  States. 

By  Mabel  Newcomer,  Ph.D.     Price,  J1.7S. 

VOLUME  LXXVII.    1917.    473  pp.    Pries,  clcth,  $4.00. 

[181]  American  Civil  Cliurcli  Law.  By  Carl  Zollmann,  LL.B.    Price,  $3.50. 

VOLUME  LXXVIII.    1917.    647  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

[183]  Tbe  Colonial  Mereliants  a.nd  the  American  Revolution. 

By  Arthur  Meier  Schlesikger,  Ph.D.     Price,  ]!4.oo. 

VOLUME  LXXIX.    1317-1818.    635  pp.    Pries,  cloth,  ?4.50. 

1.  [183]  Contemporary  Theories  of  Unemployment  and  Unemployment 
Relief.  By  Frederick  C.  Mills,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

a.  [184]  The  French  Assembly  of  1848  and  American  Constitutional  Doc- 
trine. By  Eugene  Newton  Curtis,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^^3. 00. 

VOLUME  LXXX.    1818.    448  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4-00. 

1.  [185]  *"ValuatIon  and  Rate  Making.  By  Robsrt  L.  Hale,  Ph.D.  Price,  fi.50. 

8.  [186]  Tbe  Enclosure  of  Open  Fields  In  Eng-iand. 

By  Harriet  Bradley,  Ph.D.  Price,  $1.25, 

3.  [187]  Tiie  Land  Tax  in  Cliina.  By  H.  L.  Huang,  Ph.D.  Price,  51.30. 

VOLUME  LXXXL    1918.    601pp.    Price,  cloth  $4.50. 

1.  [1S8]  Social  Life  In  Rome  in  the  Time  of  Plautus  and  Terence. 

By  Georgia  W.  Leffingwell,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.35. 

2.  [189]  *Australian  Social  Development. 

By  Clarence  H.  Northcott,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.50. 

3.  [190]  *Factory  Statistics  and  Industrial  Fatigue. 

By  Philip  S.  Florence,  Ph.D.    Price,  51.25. 

VOLUME  LXXXIL    1918-1919.    576  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [191]  Nev?-  England  and  the  Bavarian  Illuminati. 

By  Vernon  Stauffsr,  Ph.D.     Price,  $3.00. 
3.  [193]  Resale  Price  Maintenance.         By  Claudius  T.  Murchison,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  LXXXIII.    1919.    432  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $400. 

[193]  The  I.  W.  W.     Second  Edition,  1920.        By  Paul  F.  Brissendkn,  Ph.D.    Price,  $3,50. 

VOLUME  LXXXIV.    1919.    534  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.60 

1.  [1941  The  Royal  Government  in  Virginia,  1684-1775. 

By  Pkrcy  Scott  Flippin,  Ph.D.     Price,  53-oo. 
S.  [195]  Hellenic  Conceptions  of  Peace.    ByWALLACE E.Caldwell,  Ph.D.  Price,5i.a5. 

VOLUME  LXXXV.    1919.    450  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [196]  The   Religious   Policy   of   the  Bavarian  Government   during  the 

NapoJeonic  Period.  By  Chester  P.  Higby,  Ph.D.    Price,  J3.00. 

3.  [197]  Public  Debts  of  China.  By  F.  H.  Huang,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi.oo. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA     001339  413       5 


H 


IVEBSlTY^Qf;,  fill 


RJV^RS'D.^,\  •'[i'i?!i^li'iii 


«  -loirv  rMQiR  '^R75 


